BANKSMEADOW TRANSFER TERMINAL ......2014/04/08 · uses its Clyde Transfer Terminal (Clyde TT)...

BANKSMEADOW TRANSFER TERMINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal—Environmental Impact Statement Revision 1

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page i

z:\nsw\administration\development - secure\ssroc\banksmeadow intermodal\eis & planning\eis\ves banksmeadow tt_eis_08_04_14_final_clean.docx

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

ABN 76 104 485 289

Level 5, 141 Walker Street Locked Bag 6503 North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia

Tel: +61 2 8907 9000

Fax: +61 2 8907 9001

www.hyderconsulting.com

VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

BANKSMEADOW TRANSFER TERMINAL

Environmental Impact Statement

Author

Claire Hodgson and

Sara-Rose Pogson

Checker

Michael Chillcott and

Shannon Blackmore

Approver Garth Lamb

Report No N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Date 8 April 2014

Revision 4

This report has been prepared for Veolia Environmental

Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of

appointment for Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal dated

27 March 2013. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104

485 289) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of

or reliance on the contents of this report by any third

party.


Page ii


STATEMENT OF VALIDITY

This Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with relevant requirements of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation

2000.

Title Name Qualification

Associate Business Director – Waste Garth Lamb Bachelor of Environmental Science (Land &

Resource Management, Honours) and

Master of Journalism and Graduate

Certificate of Applied Finance

Senior Environmental Consultant Shannon Blackmore Bachelor of Environmental Management

and Laws

Environmental Consultant Sara-Rose Pogson Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Hons) and

Master of Environmental Management

Graduate Environmental Consultant Claire Hodgson Bachelor of Arts (Environmental Studies)

and Masters of Environmental Planning

Address Level 5, 141 Walker Street

Locked Bag 6503

North Sydney, New South Wales

2060

Australia

In respect of: Banksmeadow Waste Transfer Terminal

Applicant name: Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

Applicant address: PO Box 171

Granville, New South Wales 2142

Australia

Proposed development: Development of the Banksmeadow Waste Transfer Terminal, including:

Demolition of existing buildings

Construction and Operation of a waste transfer terminal and associated

rail infrastructure to receive and process up to 400,000 tonnes per

annum of putrescible waste and up to 100,000 tonnes per annum of

non-putrescible waste

Transfer of putrescible waste by rail to Woodlawn for treatment,

recycling and energy recovery

Transfer of non-putrescible waste by semi-trailer to resource recovery

facilities, such as the Camellia Recycling Centre for recovery of

recyclables prior to re-processing.

Land to be developed: 34 – 36 McPherson Street, Banksmeadow – Lot 1 in DP 435497, Lot A in

DP 366725 & Lot B in DP 366725

14 Beauchamp Road – Part of Lot 2 DP 1006865

Environmental assessment An environmental impact statement is attached, which investigates potential

impacts on the following:

: Strategic land use planning

Waste Management and

Air Quality and Odour.

Greenhouse Gas


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page iii


Reduction

Traffic, Transport and Access

Noise

Heritage

Soil and Water

Hazards and Risk

Biodiversity and Vermin and Pest

Management.

Declaration: Pursuant to clause 6(f), Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Regulation 2000, I declare that this Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS):

Has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Environmental

Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and the Director General

Requirements (SSD 13_5855) dated April 2013.

Contains all available information relevant to the environmental

assessment of the development to which this EIS relates; and

Contains information that is neither false nor misleading.

Name: Garth Lamb

Position: Associate Business Director – Waste

Signature:


Page iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared on behalf of Veolia Environmental Services

(Australia) Pty Ltd (Veolia) to support a State Significant Development (SSD) application under Part 4,

Division 4.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act identifies

the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (the Minister) as the consent authority for development that is

identified as SSD.

The Proposal is for the construction of the Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal and associated rail

infrastructure. The Proposal would containerise putrescible waste for rail haulage to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site, near Goulburn, NSW, for treatment, recycling and energy recovery. The terminal would also

house an area where loads of non-putrescible waste would be consolidated into semi-trailers for transfer to

resource recovery facilities, such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, for further recovery of

recyclable material.

The Proposal would, once operational, be capable of processing up to 400,000 tonnes of putrescible waste

and 100,000 t of non-putrescible waste per annum for transfer to various resource recovery facilities.

This EIS has been prepared by Hyder Consulting (Hyder) on behalf of the Veolia, as the Proponent, to

support an application for approval of the Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal, as described in Section 3 of this

EIS. It has been prepared in accordance with the Director General Requirements (DGR’s) issued in April

2013 by the Planning and Infrastructure (P&I), the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and

Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

Need for the Proposal

Landfill diversion targets set by the NSW Government, in conjunction with the sustainability expectations of

local communities and increasing waste disposal costs, are acting as catalysts for local governments,

businesses and industries to seek alternatives to landfill disposal. For Sydney councils wishing to use

Advanced Waste Treatments (AWTs) for processing of their residual waste, there is a lack of choice and

competition as current AWTs within the immediate Sydney region are owned or controlled by one company.

In order to address the lack of alternatives in AWT facilities, Veolia is constructing the Woodlawn Mechanical

Biological Treatment (MBT) facility for processing of mixed residual waste.

Landfill capacity in the immediate Sydney region is also limited, and the remaining operational putrescible

waste landfills are also controlled by one company. The sole alternative for disposal of putrescible waste is

the Woodlawn Bioreactor at Veolia’s Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

Veolia has recently entered into a contract with eight SSROC member councils for processing in excess of

100,000 tpa of their residual household waste through the Woodlawn approved MBT facility. Veolia currently

uses its Clyde Transfer Terminal (Clyde TT) facility for transport of up to 500,000 tpa of waste from Sydney

to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site (which includes the MBT facility and the Woodlawn Bioreactor), which is

approximately 250 km south of Sydney. However, despite approved capacity at the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site to handle more than twice this volume of waste, the Clyde TT is currently operating at full capacity.

In order to create choice and competition within Sydney for the management of residual waste, there is a

need to develop a new transfer facility in Sydney to service the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. The

Banksmeadow TT is proposed to meet this need.

Proposal scope

The Banksmeadow TT would involve the development of a new waste transfer building, as well as

associated road and rail infrastructure, including:


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page v


An access road for putrescible and non-putrescible waste trucks entering and exiting the facility from

Beauchamp Road.

Incoming and outgoing weighbridges to check the waste type and weight of the waste being delivered

to the facility.

An enclosed building for the unloading and handling of waste, with environmental controls such as

dust suppression and odour control systems.

A hardstand area for temporary storage and manoeuvring of full and empty sealed shipping containers

prior to loading on to trains.

Rail sidings for the loading of fully sealed containers onto trains for rail transport to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site.

The Banksmeadow TT incorporates key learnings from Veolia’s other waste management operations, in

particular the Clyde TT. Changes, following Veolia’s operational experience, which have been introduced to

improve odour control at the Clyde TT, have included:

A modification to air extraction systems, in response to clogging/blinding of filters in original design

Surfacing to avoid leachate penetration and subsequent odour emission, into the concrete tipping

floor.

These, and other measures, have been adopted from the outset in this proposal. Veolia continually reviews

its waste operations to improve environmental performance and, as necessary, undertakes alterations to

operational management and facility design. The design of the Banksmeadow TT facility does not preclude

the introduction of additional odour control measures in the future, in the unlikely event that they are

required. Potential additional measures may include:

Installation of rapid-close roller doors

Adjusting ventilation rates (at present the air extraction system has been over-designed to

accommodate this).

Any future implementation of additional odour management measures would be considered by Veolia based

on operational performance of the facility.

Prior to commencement of construction the site would be remediated to a level appropriate for use as a

waste transfer terminal. Construction of the Proposal would involve the demolition of two main engineering

buildings and four smaller structures presently on the Proposal site, and the removal of the existing asphalt

driveway and parking area.

Description of operations

The Banksmeadow TT would be designed to receive and containerise up to 400,000 t of putrescible waste

for transfer via rail to the Woodlawn Eco Project site.

Once the waste has been deposited on the floor of the enclosed building, it would be pushed by a front end

loader to one of two chutes that feed the waste compactors. A scale with an electric display would inform the

front end loader operator when the compactor is approaching the maximum capacity. Once the correct

weight is loaded, the compactor would compress the waste into a consolidated bale that is inserted into

specially designed shipping containers, which have seals to prevent the release of any leachate and carbon

filters to prevent the release of odour from the waste during transport. Once the waste has been inserted into

the container, any residual waste is removed from around the container door, and the container is sealed.

The container would then be moved outside the terminal building where a container handler would lift it and

transport it either directly to a waiting train, or to a container storage area, ready for transport on the next

available train. The compacting and filling process would take approximately 20 minutes per container. It is

proposed that two compactors would operate at the Banksmeadow TT, allowing for regular maintenance of

the compactors as part of the continued operation of the facility.


Page vi


The specially constructed shipping containers would be railed to the Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility near

the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. From there the waste would be trucked approximately 8 km to the Woodlawn

Eco-Project site. When the train returns to Sydney with the empty containers ready for re-loading, any

surplus empty waste containers would be stored at the Banksmeadow TT site in the container storage area.

The Proposal would have the capacity to containerise approximately189 t of putrescible waste per hour and

would be open to receive waste 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The timing of the train operations will be

dependent on availability of train pathways on the main railway line.

The Banksmeadow TT would be designed to receive up to 100,000 t of non-putrescible waste, which will be

consolidated into semi-trailers within the transfer building for transfer to resource recovery facilities, such as

the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, for recovery of recyclables prior to re-processing. Segregated

loads of greenwaste, timber, concrete and scrap metal would be directed to specific storage bays. Mixed

non-putrescible waste would be deposited on the floor of the terminal building. A front end loader will push

mixed non-putrescible material to the edge of tipping floor, where an excavator with a grapple arm will be

used to load material into an open-top walking floor trailer.

Timing

Subject to approval, the Proposal is expected to start accepting waste by late 2015 to early 2016. Initially the

terminal is expected to process 200,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste, increasing at 50,000 tonnes

per annum until it reaches its capacity of 400,000 tonnes per annum. The facility would commence receipt of

approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum non-putrescible waste in 2017.

Proponent and site details

The Proponent is Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (Veolia) which is a subsidiary of Veolia

Environment.

The Proposal site (the Site) is situated in the suburb of Banksmeadow, on the western side of Beauchamp

Road, and the northern side of McPherson Street. It includes part of the land owned by Asciano Services Pty

Ltd. (Asciano) at 14 Beauchamp Road, as well as land owned by Keith Engineering Pty Ltd at 34 36

McPherson Street. The Site is located largely within the City of Botany Bay local government area (LGA).

The proposed entry at the intersection between Beauchamp Road and Perry Street is located in the LGA of

Randwick City Council.

The Asciano owned portion of the site is presently used for rolling stock storage and is temporarily being

used for container handling purposes. These activities would cease prior to commencement of construction

at the Proposal site. The Keith Engineering owned portion of the site is currently used for a variety of uses,

including skip bin storage and for storage by Keith Engineering, Rosemounts & Co. and Harvest Maid

Dehydrators. The main factory building holds items such as truck trailers, stadium collapsible chairs and

machinery used by adjacent buildings. The hardstand area of the Keith Engineering site immediately in front

of the large warehouse is currently used to store semi-trailers and containers.

Consultation

As part of an ongoing commitment to stakeholder engagement, Veolia has implemented a program of

communication and consultation during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. Veolia has

consulted with statutory agencies and stakeholders throughout the preparation of including:

Environment Protection Authority

Randwick City Council

Botany Bay City Council

Transport for NSW, including Sydney Ports

NSW Ports


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page vii


NSW Office of Water.

Key issues raised during consultation with statutory agencies and stakeholders included:

Waste management and reduction: How the Proposal would achieve the resource recovery targets

under the WARR and document how the proposal would work with the Woodlawn MBT.

Traffic, transport and access: Consideration of existing traffic on the surrounding road network,

consideration of existing and future traffic from port related development and local development

proposals. Identification of road upgrade requirements and mechanisms for funding.

Rail access: Details of connection and access requirements to the Botany Goods line.

Noise: Noise impacts of the proposal on residential and adjacent industrial receivers.

Air quality and odour: Odour impacts on surrounding area and measures to mitigate.

Stormwater and flooding: Consideration of existing flood studies undertaken by Botany City Council

and impacts of the development on flooding. Control of stormwater leaving site and prevention of

stormwater from entering ARTC land.

Contamination: Assessment of site contamination on site and identification of USTs present on site.

Development of remedial strategies.

Hazards and risk: Determine hazardous materials with existing structures and identification of

hazardous substances to be used or transported to site.

The key objectives of the community focused communication and consultation program have been to:

Educate stakeholders regarding key aspects of the proposal and the EIS process;

Inform community groups and neighbours to help the project team understand concerns; and

Proactively engage with all stakeholders to identify issues that can be addressed before the public

exhibition period of the EIS.

Consultation with community groups, individuals and organisations has focused on providing general project

information and on obtaining feedback on the proposed Banksmeadow TT. Key community consultation

activities undertaken to date have included:

Establishment of a dedicated webpage, offering general information on the Proposal.

Establishment of a 1800 community line and project email to provide a central point and contact for

community enquiries.

Letter notifications of the nearest residential areas, in the suburbs of Hillsdale and Matraville.

Community briefing at the Matraville Precinct meeting.

Issues raised by the community during consultation have been addressed within this EIS.

Key environmental issues

The various components of the biophysical, social, and economic environment have been considered in this

EIS. The key environmental aspects and associated impacts of the Proposal are those aspects which require

a more detailed assessment to identify their potential impacts on the environment. These key aspects relate

to:

Soils and contamination.

Hydrology and flooding.

Traffic and access.

Waste Management.


Page viii


Noise and vibration.

Air quality and odour.

Hazards and risk.

Greenhouse gas.

The results of the assessments of these key environmental aspects are presented within Section 8 and are

summarised as follows.

Soils and contamination

Construction of the Proposal would require clearing of the whole Proposal site, which has the potential to

cause erosion and sedimentation. The Site has been determined to pose a low potential erosion hazard, and

the highly permeable course sand grains found within the area means that the sedimentation risk is lowered.

Increased salinity may also become an issue during the construction phase and there is potential that

potential acid sulphate soils (PASS) may be disturbed. Mitigation and management measures to minimise

these risks would be implemented and an acid sulphate soils management plan should be prepared.

Douglas Partners have undertaken detailed site investigations on the Site and identified six areas of

environmental concern that require remediation and/ or management prior to use of the Keith Engineering

site for the purposes of the Proposal. Management of soil contamination would also be required on Asciano

land to make the land suitable for the Proposal. Douglas Partners (2013) undertook a review of remedial and

management options that are available for the Proposal site. Remediation and on-going management to

render the Site appropriate for the operation of the Banksmeadow TT would be undertaken as part of the

Proposal.

Key measures to manage soils and contamination on the Site include:

A Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) would be developed prior to

commencement of construction, in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004). Progressive

erosion and sediment control plans (ESCP) would be developed in accordance with CSWMP to reflect

changes to the level of disturbance.

A Remedial Action Plan prepared for the Keith Engineering land and a plan, detailing measures for the

management of contamination identified on Asciano land would be implemented. The plans would be

subject to review and approval of a NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor.

An Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) would be developed prior to commencement of

construction. Construction workers would be instructed on the identification of PASS and ASS during

the site induction and the requirements of the ASSMP.

Hydrology and flooding

A Stormwater Management Report was prepared as part of the EIS. Construction of the Proposal would

require clearing of the whole Proposal site, which has the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation.

However, the Site has been determined to pose a low potential erosion hazard. There would be a minor

impact on the groundwater level during the construction of the facility due to dewatering, infiltration systems

would not be utilised due to the proximity of the water table to surface level.

The majority of the Site would be paved due to the nature of the development and their intermodal transport

requirements. There is potential to significantly increase the amount of runoff from the Site once it is

developed due to an increase in impervious surfaces and the interception of runoff that was previously

escaping the Site in an uncontrolled manner. On-site detention (OSD) would be provided to mitigate the

increase in flows leaving the Site and offset the increase in run-off.

The area around the Site has been heavily disturbed and is a predominately industrial area; there are no

permanent water resources on the Site and groundwater quality is low due to contamination from industrial

activity in the area. The quality of these water resources is unlikely to be reduced further by the Proposal.


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page ix


The Proposal has the potential to have an impact on stormwater quality leaving the Site. This would be

mitigated through the implementation of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) measures to reduce the

impact on stormwater quality as result of the Proposal.

Flood mapping prepared for Botany Bay City Council suggests that flood risk at the Site is low and any flood

waters would be classified as part of the flood fringe. The Proposal has the potential to reduce the flood

storage levels on-site due to levelling of the Site. To mitigate this impact it is proposed that the stormwater

strategy would provide sufficient on-site storage to offset any loss in flood storage.

Key measures to mitigate impacts on stormwater and flooding include:

On site detention would be provided onsite to achieve Botany Bay City Council’s requirement of 20%

annual exceedance probability event ‘natural condition’ detention and to offset the calculated flood

storage volume of 810 m3.

A 40 kL tank for stormwater storage would be provided beneath the terminal building for the purposes

of washdown and toilet flushing to minimise potable water demand at the facility.

Water sensitive urban design measures would be included within the detailed design for the Site and

would include the provision of bioretention basins and oil and grease interceptors within the new

drainage pits.

Traffic and Access

Construction traffic would temporarily increase local traffic movements over an eleven month period.

Construction traffic would be restricted to typical construction work hours and would have short term and

localised impacts. At its peak up to 60 trucks per day would access the Proposal site during the construction

phase.

A Traffic Impact Assessment was undertaken to assess the potential impacts of the project on traffic and

transport, once the terminal is operating at full capacity. Once operating at full capacity the Proposal would

be expected to require up to 215 trucks per day for the delivery of putrescible waste and up to 140 trucks per

day for the delivery of non-putrescible. The transfer of putrescible waste from the facility would by via rail,

requiring one train per day, and the transfer of non-putrescible waste from the facility would be expected to

require up to 16 trucks per day.

As a result of these truck movements the assessment determined that there would be changes in traffic

performance at the Perry Street / Beauchamp Road intersection. The assessment identified that mitigation

measures would be required to accommodate traffic demands from background growth and additional traffic

generated by the Banksmeadow TT when the Site is fully developed and operational. Mitigation measures

identified include:

Veolia would enter into a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS for the upgrade of the Beauchamp

Road/Perry Street intersection.

Site Access would provide access for future land use development proposals on Asciano land, to the

immediate north of the Banksmeadow TT site.

Interconnectivity would be provided within the Proposal site between McPherson Street entry and the

Perry Street / Beauchamp Road access.

A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be

developed for the Proposal in consultation with Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council.

These mitigation measures would be designed to restore capacity at the Beauchamp Road / Perry Street

intersection. The assessment concluded that the mitigation measures proposed would be effective in

accommodating all traffic. The proposed mitigation measures would also provide access for future land use

development proposals on the adjacent Asciano Botany Site.


Page x


Potential measures to improve road safety performance on McPherson Street and at the Beauchamp Road/

McPherson Street intersection were also identified and would be implemented as appropriate, in consultation

with the Roads and Maritime Services, Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council.

Discussions between relevant rail asset owners and Pacific National, as Veolia's proposed train operator, are

underway regarding a connection agreement for trains associated with the Proposal. Based on existing train

paths, there is sufficient access available to accommodate train movements for the operation of the

Proposal. The payments made for the access paths would contribute to consolidated revenue of the rail

asset managers, providing for rail network upgrades as identified as required by the rail asset managers.

Waste Management

Construction of the Proposal would require demolition of several existing buildings, which would generate

quantities of waste, and the construction of the new facilities, which would also generate further waste in the

form of packaging and excess materials. A Construction Waste Management Plan would be developed for

the Proposal to identify the key waste streams, likely quantities and disposal locations.

Once operational, the Proposal would be capable of processing and consolidating 400,000 t per annum of

general solid (putrescible) waste for transport to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, and 100,000 t of general

solid waste (non-putrescible) for transport to various resource recovery facilities. Leachate generated at the

Proposal site would be captured within the leachate drainage system, which would be separate from the

stormwater system, and would be pumped out into ISO tankers for transport to the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site. To minimise impacts associated with waste handling, waste received at the site would be handled on a

‘first in / first out’ basis, to minimise the residence time at the Proposal site. Procedures for identification and

management of non-conforming wastes would be developed and included in the Operational Environmental

Management Plan (OEMP) for the Proposal. Key waste management measures would include the following:

Development of a Waste Management Plan that would be incorporated into the OEMP for the Site,

which would detail waste screening processes, waste handling and loading procedures and including

an Asbestos Waste Management Procedure.

Development of an Operational Contingency Plan which would be incorporated into the OEMP and

specify the procedures to be followed in the event of external or internal events that disrupt the

operation of the Proposal.

Noise and Vibration

Wilkinson Murray was engaged to undertake a noise and vibration assessment for the Proposal. Operational

noise emissions from the Site would be expected to fully comply with the relevant Industrial Noise Policy

(INP) derived project-specific noise levels at all identified receivers. Full compliance is predicted under both

neutral and prevailing adverse meteorological conditions. The assessment also concluded that, given the

existing background noise levels experienced by the closest residential receivers to the Site, operational

activities would be expected to be rendered inaudible at these localities. Operational noise would not be

expected to result in any material increase in cumulative noise levels experience by existing residents and

predicted noise levels would be expected to be within the sleep disturbance noise limits.

During both the construction and operational phases, road traffic and rail noise levels are predicted to

increase by less than 1 dB each, complying with the Road Noise Policy (RNP) and Interim Guideline for the

Assessment of Noise from Rail Infrastructure Projects (IGANRIP) criteria respectively. Construction noise is

not expected to exceed the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) construction noise criteria at any

residential location, however there is potential for exceedances at the closest commercial and industrial

receivers. This impact is considered to be low and best practice measures would be adopted by the

developer to appropriately manage construction noise impacts on surrounding businesses. No vibration

impacts or structural damage is anticipated at either residential or commercial/ industrial buildings.

Monitoring of vibration impacts on the closest receiver, being Botany Building Recyclers, prior to construction

is proposed, to determine appropriate mitigation strategies and for visual monitoring of the stockpiles during

construction.


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page xi


Key mitigation measures to minimise noise impacts associated with the Proposal include:

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan would be developed for the construction phase

of the Proposal in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (DECC, 2009).

A Noise Management Plan – Terminal Operations and a Noise Management Plan – Rail Operations

would be developed for the Proposal, which would prescribe operational measures to minimise noise

generation on site.

Air quality and odour

Wilkinson Murray was engaged to undertake an air quality assessment for the Proposal, with in put from The

Odour Unit, based on the experiences at Veolia’s Clyde Transfer Terminal. The construction phase of the

Proposal would involve clearing of the Site and construction of the transfer terminal facilities, which would

include activities with the potential to generate dust emissions. Exhaust emissions from operation of

construction vehicles and plant would also generate particulate emissions. These impacts can be effectively

controlled through the implementation of standard control measures. Air impacts associated with operations

of the Banksmeadow TT comprise potential for dust and odour generation. Dust generated as a result of

operation would be expected to be negligible. A dust suppression system would be installed within the

terminal building that would emit a fine mist during dusty activities.

To allow for the effective control of odour from the putrescible area of the building and minimisation of

fugitive odour emissions, a ventilation system would be installed within the Banksmeadow TT building. The

system would be designed to replace the air within the terminal building nine times per hour. Odour

modelling has shown that, with the implementation of the ventilation stack, odour emissions from the

Proposal would be well below the odour emission criteria and odour impacts are not predicted at any

residential areas. Additional odour mitigation and management measures would be adopted as part of the

Proposal to minimise the risk of odour impacts, including regular maintenance activities, washdown and

management of putrescible waste on the tipping room floor on a first-in/ first out basis.

An Odour Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP and would include additional

procedures for minimising odour, including routine maintenance and cleaning of waste trucks and containers

would not be allowed onsite, waste delivery trucks would be required to be fully enclosed or covered, waste

streams would be kept separate, the floor area of the transfer terminal would be cleaned daily and odour

monitoring and reporting would be undertaken to ensure compliance.

The following key mitigation measures would be adopted for the Proposal to minimise air quality impacts:

A Construction Air Quality Management Plan would be developed for the construction phase of the

Proposal which would prescribe measures to minimise air quality impacts, including dust generation

and emissions from construction machinery.

The putrescible waste side of the terminal building would be enclosed, with the exception of vehicle

access openings and an air extraction system. The air extraction system would service the putrescible

waste and compactor area, within the northern end of the building, and would manage odour through

a single exhaust point to allow for dispersion.

The ventilation system for the putrescible waste area of the transfer terminal building would have a

single vent stack that would extend to a height of 21 m with a diameter of 2.6 m and be designed to

have an exit velocity from the stack of 20 m/s to ensure that the odour emissions from the facility are

consistent with those modelled by Wilkinson Murray (2013).

Containers used to transport putrescible waste by rail would have carbon filters installed within the air

vent and rubber seals around the openings to prevent the emission of odour.

Dust generated from non-putrescible and putrescible waste would be managed by dust suppression

systems located within the southern end of the transfer building.


Page xii


An Odour Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP and would include a Procedure

for Minimising Odour to ensure waste is managed to minimise the generation of odours.

Hazards and Risk

A preliminary hazard analysis has been undertaken for the Proposal, which determined that the Proposal is

below the screening thresholds for hazardous industries as only minimal quantities of hazardous material

would be stored at the site. Risks associated with surrounding land uses, including the Botany Industrial Park

were reviewed and it was confirmed that the Proposal site is outside the risk criteria for landuse planning and

development of the Proposal is considered acceptable on the site.

A review of other hazards and risks posed by construction and operation of the Proposal was undertaken

and measures to mitigate those risks identified. Key risks associated with construction of the Proposal

include the demolition of asbestos containing structures on Keith Engineering land and the storage of fuels

and chemicals for use in construction on the site. All activities associated with the demolition of asbestos

containing structures and removal and disposal of asbestos material would be undertaken in accordance

with NSW WorkCover’s guidelines and the Model Code of Practice - How to Manage and Control Asbestos

in the Workplace (Safe Work Australia, 2011). Management and mitigation measures to reduce risk of spills

or release of chemicals and fuels during the construction phase of the Proposal would be included in the

Construction Environmental Management Plan and would include an asbestos management plan.

A number of potential hazards to the environment and/or public health have been identified in relation to the

operation of the Proposal; including the potential for spills, fires, disruption of operations, receipt of non-

conforming waste, and electrical or equipment failure.

Key mitigation measures that would be adopted for the Proposal to minimise hazards and risk include:

Construction would be undertaken in accordance with the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act 2011

and the Model Codes of Practice developed by Safe Work Australia.

The OEMP, and supporting specific management plans, would be developed to minimise the

likelihood of an incident occurring. The operational procedures to manage the risks associated with

activities on the Site and would include an Incident Response Plan, Emergency Response Plan and a

Pollution Incident Response Management Plan.

Greenhouse gas

The Project is forecast to produce approximately 85,272 t CO2-e per year when operating at full capacity.

Annual emissions represent approximately 0.00015 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions and 0.016 per cent of NSW waste sector. The Proposal has the potential to reduce net

greenhouse gas GHG emissions by diverting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Commercial and Industrial

(C&I) waste from landfill to be processed at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. The assessment concluded that

the proposal represents an abatement potential of 52 per cent of Scope 1 GHG emissions (87,984 t CO2-e)

for each 400,000 t of waste received at the Banksmeadow TT. These projections are based on current waste

management standards, although it is likely that technological improvement in the future will increase the

efficiency of waste management techniques for the expected lifetime of the Proposal.

Mitigation measures have been identified for both the construction and operation phases to further abate

greenhouse gas emissions from the Proposal and include:

Assess feasibility of efficient electricity devices such as variable speed drives and installation of

energy efficient lighting.

Use of B20 biodiesel for diesel powered machinery on Site.


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page xiii


Other environmental considerations

The existing Site has a previous high level of disturbance and as a result there are some aspects of the

environment that are unlikely to be affected by the Proposal. While these aspects are unlikely to be affected

by the Proposal they have been assessed in the EIS and are summarised below.

Land use

The Banksmeadow TT would provide an industrial land use consistent with the existing land use, the

adjacent land uses and potential future land uses. The Proposal is consistent with land use zoning within the

area and would enable the future facilitation of further industrial growth.

Biodiversity

Construction of the Proposal is likely to require the removal of vegetation from the Site, with the exception of

several lemon-scented gums at the McPherson Street site entrance. The removal of vegetation on the Site is

not considered to significantly impact on biodiversity values as the Site supports low existing biodiversity

values. Operational handling of waste within the Banksmeadow TT would have the potential to attract

vermin, flies and birds as the decomposition of waste on-site would emit odours that attract these pests on

the Site. This risk would be minimal as operation of the facility would be such that waste is not permitted to

remain on-site, without being containerised, for a period greater than 24 hours and the containers of waste

would be sealed air and water tight.

Indigenous heritage

No recorded items of Indigenous heritage were identified within the vicinity of the Site. In addition, no native

title claims have been found to exist within the determined area. The high level of disturbance at the Site

would mean that items of heritage significance are unlikely to be discovered during excavation works for

development of the Proposal.

Non-indigenous heritage

There are two heritage items located within proximity of the Banksmeadow TT site, being the Main

Administration Building – “Orica” and the adjacent mature Ficus tree which are located within 200 m of the

Site. Neither the construction nor operational phases of the Proposal are expected to impact on the heritage

items identified. The high level of disturbance at the Site would mean that items of heritage significance are

unlikely to be discovered during excavation works for development of the Proposal.

Visual impacts

Given the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the visual impact of the Proposal would not be significant

in the context of other buildings in the vicinity of the Site. The visual impact of the Proposal is considered to

be low overall. During construction of the Proposal there is potential for visual impacts from the viewpoints of

Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street. Mitigation measures such as hoardings, would reduce the risk of

visual impacts associated with the construction of the Proposal. Light spill from the Site would be within the

relevant criteria.

Socio-economic

It is not expected that the operation of the Banksmeadow TT would lead to any long-term socio-economic

impacts or cause alteration to the socio-economic structure of the surrounding LGAs as the Site is located on

industrially zoned land and would represent a conversion of the Site from one industrial land use to another.

Construction of the Proposal may have the potential to impact on local residents through a temporary

increase in noise and dust levels. These impacts would be appropriately managed and are likely to be

minimal and localised. Overall the Proposal would provide a significant regional benefit delivering reduced

waste transferred to landfill, increasing industrial resource use and creating employment opportunities.


Page xiv


Cumulative impacts

There are a number of future and proposed developments in the surrounding area, including the Port Botany

Expansion Project, Orica’s Southlands development, Qenos’ Botany Industrial Park and a Bunnings

Warehouse.

The cumulative impacts of the project have been considered in relation to each of the key biophysical, social

and economic impacts associated with the Proposal. Impacts of the Proposal, particularly in relation to traffic

and air quality, have been considered in technical studies undertaken as part of the EIS. It was concluded

that the Proposal is unlikely to have a cumulative impact on air quality and the traffic impact assessment

found that there would be no additional traffic impacts associated with the Proposal, to those already

identified in traffic impact assessments prepared for those developments.

Mitigation measures have been recommended throughout the EIS to minimise the impacts associated with

the Proposal.

Health, Safety and Environmental Management

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared for the Proposal as the

overarching document for management of environmental impacts during construction. The CEMP for the

Banksmeadow TT would set out the processes to meet all regulatory requirements and to achieve mitigation

measures identified in this EIS, in an effective manner. The construction environmental management plan

would include aspect specific management plans, including traffic, air quality, noise and vibration, soil and

stormwater, asbestos, construction environmental management plans for remedial actions and pollution

incident responses.

As part of the Veolia’s National Integrated Management System a set of operating procedures would be

developed and implemented for the Banksmeadow TT, forming the Site’s Operational Environmental

Management Plan (OEMP). It would act as a working environmental management tool for the operation of

the Site, concentrating on the key environmental issues, including detailed plans for the management of

waste, odour, dust, traffic, vermin and pests, stormwater, incident responses and noise.

The implementation of Veolia’s well defined operating procedures and maintenance routines would minimise

the potential for incidents occurring during operation, and would be applied to the operating conditions for the

Proposal.

Conclusion

The Proposal, identified as State Significant Development, has been subject to an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Director

General’s Requirement. The potential environmental, social and economic impacts, both direct and

cumulative, have been identified and thoroughly assessed as part of this EIS. No significant environmental

impacts have been identified during the preparation of the EIS. The environmental impacts identified are

considered to be able to be mitigated through the implementation of measures for the construction and

operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

The Proposal has been assessed against, and has found to be consistent with, the priorities and targets

adopted in relevant published and draft State plans, as well as Government policies and strategies. The

Proposal would positively impact waste management in the southern Sydney region by allowing local

governments and commercial and industrial operators to choose to send their residual waste to the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site, thereby assisting local governments and businesses to reach the NSW

Government’s landfill diversion targets, established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Strategy, for municipal and commercial and industrial waste, and help to conserve putrescible landfill

airspace in the immediate Sydney region. In addition, the Banksmeadow TT would play a part in reducing

freight on Sydney roads through the use of the existing rail network to transfer putrescible waste to the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site, contributing to the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan. This would result in


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page xv


the removal of heavy vehicles from the Sydney road network that would otherwise be required to transfer this

waste to a Sydney landfill. When the Banksmeadow TT is operating at capacity, this would equate to around

30,000 heavy vehicle movements per year.

Overall the EIS concludes that the development proposed is in the public interest and approval is

recommended.


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page i


CONTENTS

Statement of validity ................................................................................................................................. ii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Proposal Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Background to the Proposal .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Site location ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Director General’s Requirements .................................................................................................... 10

2 Proposal need and Alternatives .................................................................................................. 16

2.1 Options for Mixed Residual Waste Management ............................................................................. 17

2.2 Proposal need ................................................................................................................................. 19

2.3 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 20

2.4 Summary of Proposal need ............................................................................................................. 23

3 Description of the Proposal ......................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Integration of the Proposal with Veolia’s waste management facilities ............................................ 24

3.2 Description of Banksmeadow TT ..................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 32

3.4 Plant and comissioning .................................................................................................................... 34

3.5 Description of operations ................................................................................................................. 35

3.6 Proposal Timeframes ...................................................................................................................... 40

4 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 42

4.1 Asciano land .................................................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Keith Engineering land .................................................................................................................... 45

4.3 Surrounding land uses ..................................................................................................................... 47

5 Statutory planning and context .................................................................................................... 54

5.1 Planning Assessment Process ........................................................................................................ 54

5.2 Applicable NSW Environmental Legislation ..................................................................................... 66

5.3 Applicable Commonwealth Environmental and Planning Legislation .............................................. 78

5.4 Summary of Licensing and Permit Requirements ............................................................................ 80

5.5 Strategic Justification ....................................................................................................................... 81

6 Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 87

6.1 Statutory Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 87

6.2 Community Consultation.................................................................................................................. 91

7 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment .............................................................................. 96

7.1 Risk assessment methodology ........................................................................................................ 96


Page ii


7.2 Preliminary assessment................................................................................................................... 98

8 Environmental assessment ....................................................................................................... 105

8.1 Soils and Contamination ................................................................................................................ 105

8.2 Hydrology and Flooding ................................................................................................................. 131

8.3 Traffic and Access ......................................................................................................................... 150

8.4 Waste Management ...................................................................................................................... 181

8.5 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 190

8.6 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................................... 202

8.7 Hazards and Risk .......................................................................................................................... 221

8.8 Greenhouse Gas Assessment ....................................................................................................... 230

8.9 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 238

8.10 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................... 242

8.11 Indigenous heritage ....................................................................................................................... 254

8.12 Non-Indigenous Heritage ............................................................................................................... 255

8.13 Socio-economic ............................................................................................................................. 259

8.14 Visual impact ................................................................................................................................. 262

8.15 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 272

9 Environmental Risk, Management and Monitoring ................................................................... 276

9.1 Residual Environmental Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 277

9.2 Assessment Against Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development .................................... 285

9.3 Environmental Management .......................................................................................................... 286

9.4 Monitoring and reporting ................................................................................................................ 296

10 Summary of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 299

11 Justification and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 313

11.1 Justification .................................................................................................................................... 313

11.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 314

12 References ................................................................................................................................ 315


Page ii


FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal ...................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1-2 Proximity of Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal to Veolia’s current waste facilities ............................. 4

Figure 1-3 Regional context ................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 1-4 Local context...................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3-5 Integration of proposed Banksmeadow TT with Veolia’s other waste management facilities .......... 24

Figure 3-6 Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal – Proposed layout ...................................................................... 28

Figure 3-7 Schematic layout of the Asciano Botany Yard Sidings .................................................................... 31

Figure 3-8 Schematic Layout of the Botany Yard Siding with option for a ‘by-pass siding’ ............................... 38

Figure 4-9 Existing land use .............................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 4-10 Patricks temporary office building .................................................................................................... 45

Figure 4-11 Northern portion of Asciano land, adjoining Botany Goods line ....................................................... 45

Figure 4-12 Skip bin storage at northern boundary of Keith Engineering land .................................................... 46

Figure 4-13 Storage at main factory building at 34-36 McPherson Street ........................................................... 46

Figure 4-14 Surrounding land uses (existing) ..................................................................................................... 48

Figure 4-15 Surrounding land uses (proposed) ................................................................................................... 51

Figure 5-16 SEPP (Port Botany) – Zoning .......................................................................................................... 57

Figure 5-17 Planning approval process .............................................................................................................. 65

Figure 5-18 Declared remediation site, Orica ...................................................................................................... 71

Figure 5-19 Approved Restricted Access Vehicle routes (August 2012) ............................................................. 74

Figure 6-20 Residential distribution area ............................................................................................................ 93

Figure 8-21 Banksmeadow TT –PASS Risk (NSW NRATLAS, 2013) .............................................................. 108

Figure 8-22 Sampling locations and areas of environmental concern, Keith Engineering land ......................... 116

Figure 8-23 Sampling locations, Asciano land .................................................................................................. 120

Figure 8-24 Areas of environmental concern and exceedances – Proposal site ............................................... 127

Figure 8-25 Botany Bay Major Sub-Catchments(SMCMA. 2011) ..................................................................... 133

Figure 8-26 Sub-catchments of Springvale Drain ............................................................................................. 135

Figure 8-27 Existing stormwater flows .............................................................................................................. 138

Figure 8-28 Water supply vs. water demand..................................................................................................... 142

Figure 8-29 Proposed stormwater management strategy ................................................................................. 146

Figure 8-30 Veolia Spill Response Procedure .................................................................................................. 148

Figure 8-31 Road network................................................................................................................................. 154

Figure 8-32 Key intersections ........................................................................................................................... 156

Figure 8-33 Proposed access routes ................................................................................................................ 163

Figure 8-34 Front lift truck ................................................................................................................................. 172

Figure 8-35 Rear lift truck.................................................................................................................................. 172

Figure 8-36 Schematic of revised layout of Beauchamp Road/ Perry Street/ Site Access intersection ............ 175

Figure 8-37 Meteorological Analysis of CALMET Extract (Cell Ref 5051) ........................................................ 192

Figure 8-38 PM10 monitoring from Randwick NSW EPA monitoring site ........................................................... 193

Figure 8-39 Receivers within approximately 1 km of the Proposal site ............................................................. 194

Figure 8-40 Predicted 99th percentile nose-response average ground level odour concentrations (OU) - – ‘Worst case’

daily putrescible waste (OU) ................................................................................................................................ 197

Figure 8-41 Predicted LAeq,15min operational noise contours night-time, adverse meteorological conditions (F Class

Stability) 215

Figure 8-42 Operations based emissions breakdown by source for 2020 (peak capacity) ............................... 235

Figure 8-43 Estimated greenhouse gas emissions from waste decomposition – existing waste management scenario

(BAU) vs. Proposal ............................................................................................................................................... 236


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page iii


Figure 8-44 DECCW mapping of the Proposal site (2009)................................................................................ 244

Figure 8-45 Threatened flora species recorded within 10 km of the Proposal site (Bionet 2013) ..................... 246

Figure 8-46 Threatened fauna species recorded within 10 km of the Proposal site (Bionet 2013) ................... 247

Figure 8-47 Location of SEPP (Port Botany) heritage items ............................................................................. 257

Figure 9-48 Indicative CEMP structure for the Proposal ................................................................................... 288

Figure 9-49 Adaptive management through monitoring .................................................................................... 298


Page iv


APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M

Appendix N

Appendix O

Appendix P

Appendix Q

Director General's Requirements and Agency Responses

Banksmeadow TT Proposal – Site plans

Quantity Surveyor Report

Community Consultation - Updates

Remedial Action Plan, 34 - 36 McPherson Street (Douglas Partners 2013)

Phase 2 Contamination Assessment, 14 Beauchamp Road (Douglas Partners 2014)

Stormwater Management Report (Hyder Consulting 2013)

Traffic and Access Impact Assessment Report (Hyder Consulting 2013)

Construction Waste Management Plan

Non-Conforming Waste Form (Example)

Operational Contingency Plan (Example)

Air Quality Impact Assessment (Wilkinson Murray 2014)

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Wilkinson Murray 2013)

Preliminary Hazards and Risk Assessment (Hyder Consulting 2014)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Hyder Consulting 2014)

OEH Wildlife Atlas and DOTE Protected Matters Search Tool Results

Landscape Concept Plan


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page v


Glossary / Abbreviations

Term Meaning

“ADWG” Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011

“AEP” Annual Exceedance Probability

“AHD” Australian Height Datum

“ARTC” Australian Rail Track Corporation

“ASC NEPM” National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as

updated 11 April 2013.

“ASS” “Acid sulphate soils” being the common name given to soils and sediments containing iron

sulfides, the most common being pyrite. When exposed to air due to drainage or

disturbance, these soils produce sulfuric acid, often releasing toxic quantities of iron,

aluminium and heavy metals.

“ASSMP” Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan

“AWT” Advanced Waste Treatment

“BAU” Business As Usual

“BGL” Below Ground Level

“BIP” Botany Industrial Park

“BTEX” Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

“CAQMP” Construction Air Quality Management Plan

“CBD” Central Business District

“C&I” Commercial and Industrial

“CEMP” Construction Environmental Management Plan

“CH4” Methane

“CLM Act” Contaminated Land Management Act 1995

“CMA” Catchment Management Authority

“CNVMP” Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

“COPC” Contaminants of Potential Concern

“CO2” Carbon Dioxide

“CPIRMP” Construction Pollution Incident Response Plan

“CRN” Country Rail Junction

“CSWMP” Construction Soil and Water Management Plan

“CTMP” Construction Traffic Management Plan

“CWMP” Construction Waste Management Plan

“DA” Development Application

“dBA” Decibel Adjusted


Page vi


Term Meaning

“DCP” Development Control Plan

“DGR” Director-General’s Requirement

“DIICCSRTE” Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary

Education

“DMP” Dust Management Plan

“DoS” Degree of Saturation

“DotE” Commonwealth Department of the Environment

“ECRTN” Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise

“EIS” Environmental Impact Statement

“EPA” NSW Environment Protection Authority

“ERP” Emergency Response Plan

“ESCP” Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

“FAQ” Frequently Asked Questions

“GHG: Greenhouse gas emissions

“GIL” Groundwater Investigation Level

“GPR” Ground penetrating radar

“ha” hectare/s

“HAZOP” Hazard and Operability Study

“HCB” Hexachlorobenzene

“HIL” Health Investigation Level

“HSL” Health Screening Level

“HVAC” Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

“ICNG” Interim Construction Noise Guideline

“IGANRIP” Interim Guideline for the Assessment of Noise from Rail Infrastructure Projects

“INP” Industrial Noise Policy

“IRP” Incident Response Plan

“KL” Kilo-Litres

“km” kilometre/s

“km/h” Kilometres per hour

“L” Litres

“LALC” Local Aboriginal Land Council

“LGA” Local Government Area

“LoS” Level of Service


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page vii


Term Meaning

mAHD Metres above Australian Height Datum

“mBGL” Metres Below Ground Level

“MBT” Mechanical Biological Treatment

“MFN” Metropolitan Freight Network

“Mt” megatonnes

“NGA” National Greenhouse Accounts

“NGER” National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

“NIMS” National Integrated Management System

“NMI” National Measurement Institute

“NOW” NSW Office of Water

“OEMP” Operational Environmental Management Plan

“OMP” Odour Management Plan

“OSD” Onsite Detention

“non-putrescible

waste”

“general solid waste (non-putrescible)” as per the Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1;

Classifying Waste (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, 2009)

“OCP” Organochlorine pesticides

“OPP” Organophosphorous pesticides

“PAH” Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

“PASS” “Potential acid sulphate soils” being “acid sulphate soils” that are under anaerobic reducing

conditions.

“PCB” Polychlorinated biphenyls

“PIRMP” Pollution Incident Response Management Plan

“PM10” Particulate Matter

“POEO Act” Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997

“PPV” Peak Particle Velocity

“putrescible waste” “general solid waste (putrescible)” as per the Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1;

Classifying Waste (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, 2009)

“PSD” Permissible site discharge

“PSH” Phase separated hydrocarbons

“PSNL” Project specific noise levels

“R-factor” “Erosivity factor”, representing represents a measure of the erosive force and intensity of

rain.

RAP Remediation Action Plan

“RBL” Rating Background Level


Page viii


Term Meaning

“Rd” Road

“RING” Rail Infrastructure Noise Guidelines

“RL” Reduced Level

“RMS” Roads and Maritime Services

“RNMP” Noise Management Plan – Rail Operations

“RNP” Road Noise Policy

“RUSLE” “Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation”, used to calculate average annual soil loss.

“SCATS” Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic Signal

‘SEMP” Site Environmental Management Plan

“SEPP” State Environmental Planning Policy

“SMCMA” Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

“SMP” Stormwater Management Plan

“SSFL” South Sydney Freight Line

“SSROC” Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

“St” Street

“t” tonnes

“TEC” Threatened Ecological Community

“TEOM” Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance

“TEU” Twenty foot containers

“TfNSW” Transport for New South Wales

“TRH” Total recoverable hydrocarbons

“TMP” Traffic Management Plan

“TN” Total Nitrogen

“TNMP” Noise Management Plan – Terminal Operations

“TP” Total Phosphorous

“tpa” tonnes per annum

“TSC Act” Threatened Species Conservation Act1995

“TSS” Total Suspended Solids

“TT” Transfer Terminal

“UPSS” Underground petroleum storage system

“UST” Underground storage tank

“Veolia” Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

“VOC” Volatile organic compounds


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page ix


Term Meaning

“VPCP” Vermin and Pest Control Plan

“WARR” Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

“WHS” Work Health and Safety Act 2011

“WMP” Waste Management Plan

“WRI/WBCSD” World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable Development

“WSUD” Water Sensitive Urban Design


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (Veolia) is proposing to develop the

Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal (TT) and associated rail infrastructure at an existing

industrial site in Banksmeadow, within the Local Government Areas (LGA) of Botany Bay

and Randwick (the Proposal).

The Proposal involves the construction of a transfer terminal that would containerise

putrescible waste for rail haulage to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, near Goulburn, NSW,

for treatment, recycling and energy recovery. The terminal would also house an area where

loads of non-putrescible waste would be consolidated into semi-trailers for transfer to

resource recovery facilities, such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, for further

recovery of recyclable material.

The Proposal would, once operational, be capable of processing up to 400,000 tonnes (t) of

putrescible waste and 100,000 t of non-putrescible waste per annum for transfer to various

resource recovery facilities.

The Banksmeadow TT would involve the development of a new waste transfer building, as

well as associated road and rail infrastructure, including:

An access road for putrescible and non-putrescible waste trucks entering and exiting

the facility from Beauchamp Road.

Incoming and outgoing weighbridges to check the waste type and weight of the waste

being delivered to the facility.

An enclosed building for the unloading and handling of waste, with environmental

controls such as dust suppression and odour control systems.

A hardstand area for temporary storage and manoeuvring of full and empty sealed

shipping containers prior to loading on to trains.

Rail sidings for the loading of containers onto trains for rail transport to Woodlawn.


Page 2


Figure 1-1 Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal




1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL

Resource recovery targets established under the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource

Recovery Strategy 2007 together with increasing levies on waste disposed to landfill (under

Section 88 of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997) are providing

incentives for local governments, businesses and industries to reduce waste sent to landfill

by increasing their levels of resource recovery.

Waste management and disposal options in the Sydney region are increasingly limited.

Landfill airspace for putrescible waste in the immediate Sydney region is limited, and, with

the exception of Veolia’s Woodland Eco-Project site, all landfills and alternative residual

waste treatment facilities in this region are owned or controlled by one company.

A number of councils within the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

(SSROC) have entered into a contract with Veolia for processing of their household residual

waste material at Veolia’s Woodlawn Eco-Project site. To facilitate the transfer of this

material to the Woodlawn site, Veolia requires a transfer facility that would enable

consolidation of waste collected from the Council areas in which the waste is generated,

and which can provide a terminal for loading waste for transport to Woodlawn.

Veolia currently operates a similar transfer facility at Clyde, in Western Sydney. The Clyde

Transfer Terminal (TT) receives waste from the surrounding area of western Sydney. This is

then containerised and transported via rail to the Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility in

Woodlawn, for transfer via road to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. The Clyde TT has been

in operation since 2004 and has the capacity to receive 500,000 t of waste annually.

However, as the Clyde TT is operating at full capacity, a new transfer facility is now required

for management of waste from the SSROC area.


Page 4


Figure 1-2 Proximity of Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal to Veolia’s current waste facilities





Page 6


1.3 SITE LOCATION

The proposed transfer terminal site (the Site) is situated on the western side of Beauchamp

Road, and the northern side of McPherson Street, in the suburb of Banksmeadow. It

includes part of the land owned by Asciano Services Pty Ltd. (Asciano) at 14 Beauchamp

Road, as well as land owned by Keith Engineering Pty Ltd at 34-36 McPherson Street. The

lot and deposited plan identification of the site is provided in Table 1-1, below.

Table 1-1 Lot and deposited plans of the site

Lot Deposited Plan Owner

1 435497 Keith Engineering

A 366725

B 366725

2 (Part only) 1006865 Asciano

The Site is located largely within the City of Botany Bay local government area (LGA). The

proposed entry at the intersection between Beauchamp Road and Perry Street is located in

the LGA of Randwick City Council.

While located within the LGAs of Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council the

Site is subject to the provision of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Port Botany and

Port Kembla) 2013 (SEPP (Port Botany)). Under the SEPP (Port Botany) the site is zoned

IN1 – General Industrial.

REGIONAL CONTEXT 1.3.1

There are 16 member councils within the SSROC grouping, accounting for a combined

population of around 1.5 million people and covering an area from the City of Sydney in the

north of the region, to Bankstown City Council in the west and Sutherland Shire Council in

the south. Eight of the SSROC member councils have entered into the contract with Veolia.

The SSROC local government areas contain some of Sydney’s most significant economic

and industrial areas, including the Central Business District, Port Botany and Sydney’s main

airport.

The Port Botany (& environs) Specialised Precinct is identified in the Draft Metropolitan

Strategy for Sydney (NSW Government, 2013). It includes one of Australia’s most important

freight terminals for containerised goods and bulk liquids and gases, handling over

24 million tonnes of freight (NSW Ports 2013) and generating around $10.5 billion per year

(Infrastructure NSW 2012).

Botany Bay local government area (LGA) has long been dominated by industrial

development associated with Port Botany and Sydney Airport. Over half of the Botany Bay

LGA is zoned for industrial and commercial land uses, much of which plays an important

role in supporting Port Botany and Sydney Airport. There has been some conversion of

previously industrial areas to residential use in the past decade. However, during the same

period industrial uses have intensified around Port Botany and Sydney Airport, particularly

transport and logistics related use (NSW Department of Planning, 2007).




Also within the region, adjacent to Port Botany, is Sydney’s domestic and international

airport, Kingsford Smith Airport, which is Australia’s busiest domestic and international

passenger and air freight facility. In 2010, over 35.6 million passengers and nearly 700,000

tonnes of freight passed through the airport terminals (Southern Cross Airports Corporation

Holdings Limited, 2013).


Page 8


Figure 1-3 Regional context




LOCAL CONTEXT 1.3.2

The Site is surrounded by industrial lots and is bounded by McPherson Street to the south,

a freight rail line to the west, the Asciano Botany Site to the east, and Beauchamp Road to

the south-east. The Site wraps around a construction and demolition recycling yard, Botany

Building Recyclers, which faces McPherson Street. The Botany Building Recyclers

operations are not associated with the Proposal.

The nearest residential area to the Site located within the suburb of Hillsdale, approximately

250 m to the north-east. To the north and east, the Botany Industrial Park (BIP) includes a

chemical manufacturing plant (Orica’s ChlorAlkali plant), a plastics manufacturing plant and

Orica’s groundwater treatment facility. Central to the Site is Botany Building Recyclers,

which operates as a recycling and resource recovery facility that accepts building,

demolition and green vegetation materials. The operations of the Botany Building Recyclers

are not associated with the Proposal.

Beyond the freight rail line to the south-west and west of the Site are a series of large

industrial spaces, currently used for freight warehousing and storage. Directly to the west is

Orica’s Southlands site. This space, covering 20 ha of undeveloped industrial-zoned land is

currently dedicated to the Botany Groundwater Cleanup Project. To the south of the site and

facing McPherson Street is the Goodman Botany Industrial Park.

Figure 1-4 shows the local context of the Proposal.


Page 10


Figure 1-4 Local context




1.4 DIRECTOR GENERAL’S REQUIREMENTS

The Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for this EIS were received in April 2013 and

are outlined in Table 1-2. The DGRs and agency responses are contained in Appendix A of

this EIS.

Table 1-2 Director-General’s Requirements for this EIS

Requirements Section

addressed

Detailed description of the site, and existing and approved operations. Section 4

Detailed description of the development, including:

Detailed description of proposed demolition, excavation and construction

works, and detailed description of ongoing operations

Need for the proposed development having particular regard to the aims,

objectives, and guidance in the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource

Recovery Strategy 2007

Alternatives considered

Justification for the proposed development taking into consideration its

location, any environmental impacts of the development, the suitability of the

site and whether the development is in the public interest

Likely staging of the development – including construction and operational

stages/s

Likely interactions between the development and existing, approved and

proposed operations in the vicinity of the site and with other waste

management facilities including Veolia’s Camellia, Crisps Creek and

Woodlawn facilities

Plans of any proposed building works.

Section 3.2

Section 5.5

Section 2.3

Section 2.2 and

8.9

Section 4.3 and

3.1

Section 3

Appendix B

Consideration of all relevant environmental planning instruments, including

identification and justification of any inconsistencies with these instruments; i.e.

the aims, objectives, and guidance in the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource

Recovery Strategy 2007, State Environmental Planning Policy (Major

Developments) 2005, relevant development control plans and section 94 plans.

Section 5

Risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the development,

identifying the key issues for further assessment.

Sections 7 and

9.1

Detailed assessment of the key issues specified below, and any other significant

issues identified in this risk assessment, which includes:

A description of the existing environment, using sufficient baseline data

An assessment of the potential impacts of all stages of the development,

including any cumulative impacts, taking into consideration relevant

guidelines, policies, plans and statutes

A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise

and if necessary, offset the potential impacts of the development, including

proposals for adaptive management and/or contingency plans to manage

any significant risks to the environment

Section 8

Section 9

Section 10


Page 12



addressed

A consolidated summary of all the proposed environmental management and

monitoring measures, highlighting commitments included in the EIS.

Section 10

The EIS must also be accompanied by a report from a qualified quantity

surveyor providing:

A detailed calculation of the capital investment value (as defined in clause 3

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000) of the

proposed development, including details of all assumptions and components

from which the CIV calculation is derived

An estimate of the jobs that will be created during the construction and

operational phases of the proposed development

Certification that the information provided is accurate at the date of

preparation.

Appendix C

The EIS must address the following specific matters:

Strategic Landuse Planning, including:

Details on the suitability of the site for the proposed development

Justification for the proposed site layout

An assessment of the project in terms of the priorities and targets adopted

under the NSW 2021, Metropolitan Plan for Sydney to 2036 and/or draft

Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2031 and other relevant published and

draft State plans.

Sections 5.1 and

8.9

Sections 5.5 and

8.9

Waste Management and Reduction, including:

Details of proposed classification and quantity of waste that would be

received, generated, handled, processed or disposed of at the facility

Details of the layout of the waste facility, the treatment process and the

environmental controls

Description of how this waste would be stored and managed on site,

including transported to and from the site

Details of the potential impacts associated with storing, sorting and disposing

of this waste and waste products

Integration of the proposal with Veolia’s broader waste strategy and network

The measures that would be implemented to ensure that the proposal is

consistent with the aims, objectives and guidelines in the NSW Waste

Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007 and the EPA’s Waste

Classification Guidelines

A Waste Management Plan for the demolition and construction phase of the

project.

Section 8.4





addressed

Traffic, Transport and Access, including

Details of key transport routes, vehicle types proposed to access the site, the

traffic volumes likely to be generated and the likely arrival and departure

times of all traffic generated by the site (both during construction and

ongoing operations)

Assessment of predicted impacts on road safety and the capacity of the road

network to accommodate the project

Detailed plans of the proposed layout of the internal road network and

parking on site in accordance with the relevant Australian standards

(including swept path diagrams and details to demonstrate that the facility

will not result in queuing off-site)

Detailed plans of any proposed road or intersection upgrades, infrastructure

works or new roads required for the development (including proposed

funding for road improvement works if required)

The cumulative impact of traffic generated by other existing or proposed

developments (e.g. the Sydney Ports expansion and the Bunnings

development)

Details to demonstrate that the proposed operations will not result in adverse

impacts on the operations of the main goods rail line.

Section 8.3

Appendix H

Noise, including

A quantitative assessment of potential demolition, construction, operational

and road/ rail transport noise and vibration impacts, including potential

impacts on nearby sensitive receivers

Details and justification of the proposed noise management and monitoring

measures.

Section 8.6

Air Quality and Odour, including

A quantitative assessment of the potential air quality and odour impacts for

all stages of the proposal in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines and

requirements

Detailed emission control techniques / practices that will be employed by the

proposal

Details of ongoing management and monitoring measures for preventing

and/or minimising both point and fugitive emissions

Consideration of cumulative impacts associated with existing emission

sources as well as any currently approved developments linked to the

receiving environment

An assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed air quality and odour

control measures (including those proposed for the containers used to

transfer the waste) demonstrating compliance with relevant regulatory

framework, specifically the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO)

Act (1997) and the POEO (Clean Air) Regulation (2002).

Section 8.5


Page 14



addressed

Greenhouse Gas, including

A quantitative assessment of the potential scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas

emissions of the project, and a qualitative assessment of the potential

impacts of the emissions on the environment

A detailed description, evaluation and report on the feasibility of measures

that would be implemented on site to ensure that the project is energy

efficient and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Section 8.8

Soil and Water, including

A description of the existing surface and groundwater quality, including an

assessment of an water resource likely to be affected by the proposal

The proposed erosion and sediment controls during construction

A comprehensive flood study, including consideration of flooding impacts, the

proposed site layout and any changes in flood behaviour

An assessment of potential site contamination, salinity and acid sulfate soils,

including confirmation that the site is or can be made suitable for the

proposed development

The proposed stormwater management system, including the capacity of

onsite detention systems, and measures to treat, reuse or dispose of water

A site water balance including a detailed description of the measures to

minimise the water use at the site

Wastewater (including leachate) predictions, including volume and the

measure that would be implemented to avoid discharges, collect, treat, reuse

and/or dispose of this water

An assessment of the impacts of the project on watercourses and riparian

areas, groundwater sources and dependent ecosystems

Consideration of any dewatering requirements during onsite removal of

Underground Storage Tanks.

Section 8.1 and

8.2

Section 8.1

Section 8.2

Section 8.1

Section 8.2

Section 8.2

Section 8.2 and

8.4

Section 8.2

Section 8.1 and

8.4

Hazards and Risks, including a preliminary risk screening undertaken in

accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and

Offensive Development (SEPP 33) and Applying SEPP 33 (DoP, 2011), and if

necessary, a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).

Section 8.7

Visual, including

An assessment of the potential visual impacts of the project on the amenity

of the surrounding area

A detailed description of the measures that would implemented to minimise

the visual impacts of the project, including the design features, landscaping

and measures to minimise he lighting and signage impacts of the project.

Section 8.14

Section 8.14.3

Section 8.14.4

Heritage – including the potential Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage impacts

of the project.

Section 8.11

Section 8.12

Biodiversity Section 8.10

Vermin and Pest Management Section 8.10




This EIS has also been prepared to meet the requirements of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Regulations 2000. Table 1-3 identifies where these requirements have been addressed

in the EIS.

Table 1-3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, EIS form requirements

Requirement Addressed

6 Form of environmental impact statement

(a) the name, address and professional qualifications of the

person by whom the statement is prepared,

Statement of Validity

(b) the name and address of the responsible person, Statement of Validity

(c) the address of the land: Statement of Validity

(i) in respect of which the development application is to be made,

or


(ii) on which the activity or infrastructure to which the statement

relates is to be carried out,


(d) a description of the development, activity or infrastructure to

which the statement relates,


(e) an assessment by the person by whom the statement is

prepared of the environmental impact of the development, activity

or infrastructure to which the statement relates, dealing with the

matters referred to in this Schedule,


(f) a declaration by the person by whom the statement is prepared to the effect that:

(i) the statement has been prepared in accordance with this

Schedule, and


(ii) the statement contains all available information that is relevant

to the environmental assessment of the development, activity or

infrastructure to which the statement relates, and


(iii) that the information contained in the statement is neither false

nor misleading.


7 Content of environmental impact statement

(a) a summary of the environmental impact statement Executive Summary

(b) a statement of the objectives of the development, activity or

infrastructure,

Section 2.2.1


Page 16


Requirement Addressed

(c) an analysis of any feasible alternatives to the carrying out of

the development, activity or infrastructure, having regard to its

objectives, including the consequences of not carrying out the

development, activity or infrastructure,

Section 2.3

(d) an analysis of the development, activity or infrastructure, including:

(i) a full description of the development, activity or infrastructure,

and

Section 3

(ii) a general description of the environment likely to be affected

by the development, activity or infrastructure, together with a

detailed description of those aspects of the environment that are

likely to be significantly affected, and

Section 8

(iii) the likely impact on the environment of the development,

activity or infrastructure, and

Section 8

(iv) a full description of the measures proposed to mitigate any

adverse effects of the development, activity or infrastructure on

the environment, and

Section 8 and Section 10

(v) a list of any approvals that must be obtained under any other

Act or law before the development, activity or infrastructure may

lawfully be carried out,

Section 5

(e) a compilation (in a single section of the environmental impact

statement) of the measures referred to in item (d) (iv),

Section 10

(f) the reasons justifying the carrying out of the development,

activity or infrastructure in the manner proposed, having regard to

biophysical, economic and social considerations, including the

principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in

subclause (4).

Section 5.5, Section 9.2 and

Section 11




2 PROPOSAL NEED AND ALTERNATIVES

Currently the primary solution for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Commercial and

Industrial Waste (C&I) management within the Sydney region is landfill. Existing landfill

capacity is limited, future landfill capacity even more so with no further sites in development.

There are a number of treatment facilities which process mixed residual waste and it is

envisaged that the number of these facilities will increase as the cost of landfill becomes

more expensive and sustainability considerations continue to drive an increase in the

recycling and recovery of waste.

However, landfills, and the waste management infrastructure required to access it, will

remain a critical component of Sydney’s waste management infrastructure for the

foreseeable future.

Landfill diversion targets set by the NSW Government, in conjunction with the sustainability

expectations of local communities and increasing waste disposal costs (due in part to the

levy imposed on waste disposed to landfill under Section 88 of the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act 1997) are providing incentives for local governments,

businesses and industries to seek alternatives to landfill disposal.

Two principal methods currently used in Australia for diverting material from landfill are:

Separation of recyclable material at the waste generation source (source-separation).

Recovery of recyclable material from mixed waste using an advanced waste

treatment (AWT) facility.

Many local governments use a combination of these two methods for management of their

waste streams. For Sydney councils wishing to use AWT for processing of their residual

waste to achieve high resource recovery rates, there is a lack of choice and competition as

access to current AWTs within the immediate Sydney region is only through facilities owned

or controlled by SITA.

The Southern Sydney region is currently served by only one waste transfer station for

municipal and commercial putrescible waste, which is located in Rockdale. That facility

forms part of the waste management transfer station infrastructure developed and

previously operated by NSW Government, which is now owned and operated by SITA. This

network of existing transfer stations, serve the Sydney metropolitan area in which they are

located, consolidating local waste collections for onward road transport and disposal to

landfill and treatment facilities in western and southern Sydney.

Additionally, landfill capacity in the Sydney region is also limited, and the remaining

operational putrescible waste landfills are also controlled by SITA. The sole remaining

capacity for putrescible waste transfer, treatment or disposal is provided by Veolia. Located

at Woodlawn, 250 km south-west of Sydney near Goulburn, Veolia operate the Woodlawn

Bioreactor which is currently accessible to Sydney only via rail using the Clyde Transfer

Terminal.

Woodlawn, together with the SITA owned Lucas Heights Landfill provide the only long-term

landfill capacity for Sydney’s putrescible waste. Woodlawn is also the location for a new

waste treatment facility to service the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils

(SSROC).

The following sections outline the current management options available within the Sydney

region.


Page 18


2.1 OPTIONS FOR MIXED RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

The capacities of landfills and AWT facilities within the Sydney region are presented in

Table 2-4 and Table 2-5, respectively.

Table 2-4 Major Putrescible Waste Landfill Facilities servicing the Sydney Region

Facility Owner Remaining

Capacity as at

Jan 2008 1 (t)

Input rate limits

(as at Jan 2008)

(tpa)

Closure Date

Woodlawn

Bioreactor

(Sydney

Region

capacity

only)

Veolia 32,432,590 1,000,000

(900,000 tpa of

putrescible waste

100,000 tpa of

Woodlawn MBT

residual waste) 2

~ beyond 2040

Lucas

Heights

SITA 5,543,163 Delivery limit of

575,000 tpa

2024

(Closure date approved

1999, upheld in 2012

modification)

Eastern

Creek

SITA 3,259,964 500,000 tpa Extended to 2017 for mixed

putrescible waste

2022 for AWT residual

waste

Belrose

SITA 209,031 No input cap

Original closure was due

2005 but now covenant

agreement on operations to

cease November 2014

Former

Jack’s

Gully

landfill

(now

Spring

Farm

AWT)

SITA 730,047

No input cap

Closed to putrescible waste

on 6 July 2008

After Wright Corporate Strategy (2009)

1 Wright Corporate Strategy, Independent Public Review: Landfill Capacity and Demand; March 2009.

2 As approved March 2012




Table 2-5 Approved Sydney AWT facility processing capacity of mixed putrescible waste (as at Jan 2012)

AWT Facility Owner Processing capacity

(tpa)

Commencement

‘UR3R’, Eastern Creek Global Renewables

(feedstock procured

solely from SITA)

220,000 Commenced operation

in 2004

‘Ecolibrium’, Spring

Farm

SITA 90,000

Commenced operation

in 2010

‘SAWT’, Kemp’s Creek SITA 80,0003

Commenced operation

in 2009

Woodlawn MBT Veolia 240,000 Not commenced yet

‘Ecolibrium’, Lucas

Heights

SITA 100,000 Approved June 2010,

not yet commenced

20 year lifetime limit

After Wright Corporate Strategy (2009)

As can be seen in Table 2-4, past 2017, the sole remaining disposal facilities for the

management of putrescible waste within the Sydney region are the Lucas Heights landfill,

operated by SITA Australia, and Veolia’s Woodlawn Eco-Project site. Of these, the

Woodlawn Bioreactor provides the bulk of putrescible landfill capacity available to the

Sydney region.

Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 also demonstrate that the majority of waste facilities servicing the

Sydney region are owned or controlled by SITA Australia.

In order to address the lack of commercial alternatives to Local Councils and commercial

and industrial waste generators for mixed waste processing through AWT facilities, Veolia is

developing the Woodlawn Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility. This facility will

form part of the Woodlawn site, providing an alternative to the SITA-controlled facilities for

processing residual waste.

The Planning Assessment Commission recently granted an input rate limit increase to the

Woodlawn Bioreactor, following assessment by P&I, allowing up to 1.13 million tpa input,

including 900,000 tpa of putrescible waste by rail and 100,000 tpa of residual from the

Woodlawn MBT and up to 130,000 tpa of local waste by road.

Veolia has recently entered into a contract with eight SSROC member councils for

processing in excess of 100,000 tpa of their residual household waste through the

Woodlawn MBT facility. Processing of residual waste at this facility will assist the following

councils to increase resource recovery rates and achieve the landfill diversion targets

established by the NSW Government:

Ashfield

Botany Bay

3 Planning application to increase tonnage pending


Page 20


Burwood

Kogarah

Leichardt

Rockdale

Waverley

Woollahra.

Veolia currently uses the Clyde Transfer Terminal, in Western Sydney, to transport waste

from Sydney to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site via rail. The Clyde Transfer Terminal

services central, inner west and some northern Sydney Council areas and, whilst it has the

capacity to handle 500,000 tpa, it is already at capacity. At the Clyde Transfer Terminal,

waste is consolidated at the terminal, containerised and then sent via rail to the Crisps

Creek Intermodal Facility, where the containers are transferred for the final stage of the

journey to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site by truck.

2.2 PROPOSAL NEED

As discussed above, putrescible landfill capacity in the Sydney region is currently limited,

and the landfills and AWT facilities for treatment of mixed residual waste are largely

monopolised as the result of the sale of government infrastructure to one company. The

result is a lack of market competition and limited choice available for both local governments

and commercial industrial operators for the disposal of residual waste. There is therefore a

need within the Sydney waste management market to create choice and competition within

Sydney for the management of residual waste.

The Woodlawn Eco-Project site represents the only alternative facility to the SITA managed

facilities within the Sydney region for management of putrescible waste. The Woodlawn

Eco-Project site is approved to handle more than twice the volume of waste that is currently

transported to it from the Clyde TT, which is currently operating at full capacity.

As a result additional transfer terminal capacity is required to service the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site, providing access to alternative AWT facilities and putrescible waste landfill

capacity.

PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES 2.2.1

The key objectives of the Proposal are as follows:

To create choice and competition in the Sydney region for management of putrescible

and non-putrescible waste.

To provide the southern Sydney region with access to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

To enable processing of putrescible waste from southern Sydney councils through an

AWT facility to increase landfill diversion and recovery of valuable materials.

To enable commercial and industrial operators in the southern Sydney area to send

non-putrescible mixed waste to a materials recovery centre.




To provide a vital component to Veolia’s network of recovery infrastructure,

complementing the Clyde Transfer Terminal and allowing the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site to operate at close to its approved input capacity.4

To promote the use of rail as a transport mode, reducing heavy vehicle movements

on the road network.

To provide the necessary piece of waste management infrastructure for Sydney’s

future waste management requirements.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES

A number of alternative scenarios to achieve the Proposal objectives were considered, and

included:

The ‘Do Northing’ scenario.

Expansion of existing facilities.

Construction of a new facility.

The alternatives reviewed against the Proposal objectives are discussed below.

“DO NOTHING” SCENARIO 2.3.1

If the Proposal did not proceed in any form, local governments and commercial and

industrial operators in the southern Sydney region would continue to rely on existing waste

infrastructure. This would have the following effect:

Local governments in southern Sydney would continue to send their residual waste to

landfill instead of having the alternative to divert the waste to the proposed MBT

facility at Woodlawn. This would impact the ability of these councils to reach the

municipal waste diversion target under the Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy

2007.

Local businesses in southern Sydney would not receive an additional facility in the

area via which non-putrescible waste can be sent to a resource recovery facility

instead of landfill, impacting the ability to reach the C&I waste diversion target under

the Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007.

Landfills in the local Sydney area would reach capacity at a faster rate, as the

incoming waste would not be diverted to the Woodlawn MBT facility or the Camellia

Recycling Centre for recovery of materials.

There would be a continued dearth of competition in the Sydney regional waste

management market as one operator would own or control all existing putrescible

waste processing and disposal locations.

For the above-listed reasons, not proceeding with the Proposal in some form would not

achieve the Proposal objectives.

4 It is noted that the operation of Clyde Transfer Terminal and the proposed Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal at full

capacity (i.e. 900,000 tpa) would not reach the Woodlawn Eco-Project site’s annual operational capacity.


Page 22


EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES 2.3.2

As identified in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5, the majority of waste facilities within the Sydney

region are owned or controlled by SITA. SITA operates a number of waste transfer stations

within the Sydney region, which receive waste for consolidation and disposal at other SITA

operated facilities.

As these facilities are not owned or operated by Veolia, the option of expanding one or

multiple of these transfer stations is not a realistic alternative to the Proposal and would not

achieve the Proposal objectives as:

It would not create choice and competition within the Sydney market as they are

already the dominant waste management facility operator.

None of these facilities have access to rail; hence would not achieve the objective of

promoting the use of rail as a transport mode;

Therefore waste sent to the existing transfer stations could not be transported to the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site and would not therefore provide Councils with access to

the planned Woodlawn MBT facility

As discussed previously, the existing Clyde Transfer Terminal, which is operated by Veolia,

is currently operating at capacity and therefore does not provide an alternative to the

Proposal. The location of the facility in western Sydney would also not meet the Proposal

objectives of providing choice and competition for waste generators in southern Sydney,

due to the impracticalities of accessing the Clyde TT from southern Sydney.

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY 2.3.3

As the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario and the expansion of other facilities would not achieve the

Proposal objectives, the alternative remaining is the construction of a new waste transfer

facility. Veolia has undertaken a thorough investigation of locations throughout Sydney in

order to find a suitable site for the proposed development.

Construction of Proposal at alternative locations

In selecting the Proposal Site, a number of factors were taken into consideration. To

achieve the project objectives, the following key site attributes were identified:

Location in the southern Sydney region, in close proximity to the Botany Goods Line.

Ability to secure rail siding access to the Botany Goods Line.

Site area of approximately 1 hectare (ha) or more.

A review of potentially suitable industrial land adjacent to rail in the SSROC region was

undertaken, using land ownership database with mapping, aerial photography and on the

ground inspections. The search identified 28 properties matching the size and location

criteria, along the Botany Goods Line. The majority of these were found to be unsuitable

because of issues such as:

Existing or proposed development uses on the land making it unavailable.

Unsuitable zonings and surrounding uses, such as residential.

Unsuitable access to the site and rail sidings.




Six sites, other than the Banksmeadow TT site were identified during the review as

potentially suitable, based on a preliminary assessment of road and rail access,

permissibility of the Proposal under land zoning and the existing land uses. The sites and

the reason they were discounted area summarised below:

A portion of Orica Southlands, Port Botany – located on land zoned IN1 – General

Industrial under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Port Botany and Port

Kembla) 2013 (SEPP(Port Botany)). Access to rail from this site was considered to be

too difficult and road access would not be suitable for the Proposal.

Quantum Corporate Park, Port Botany – located on land zoned IN1 – General

Industrial under the SEPP(Port Botany). The subdivision of this land had halted at the

time of the review due to issues with the planning approval applications for the

Proposal and was therefore inappropriate as it would not meet the Proposal

timeframes. Additionally, this site was discounted as the site with rail access did not

have suitable length/ dimensions to accommodate a rail siding and the transfer

station.

Sydney Ports Corporation Botany Road site, Port Botany – located on land zoned

SP1 Special Activities under the SEPP (Port Botany). Discussions with Sydney Ports,

however confirmed that no land would be available within the required timeframes for

the Proposal.

Sydney Airport Corporation Limited Canal Road site, Mascot – located on land zoned

IN1 – General Industrial under the Marrickville Local Environment Plan 2011.

Discussions with Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) confirmed that this land

was not currently available as SACL were undertaking studies into future airport

related land uses for the site.

Mobil Port Feeder Road site, Botany – this site does not have direct rail access and

access to the rail network would be via an extended siding. Discussions with Mobil

indicated that the site could be available in two years’ time; however site

contamination studies would be required to confirm the suitability of the site for the

Proposal and Mobil had not commenced these investigations and there was a level of

uncertainty about the suitability of the site. Additionally, vehicle access to the site was

considered inappropriate for the Proposal.

38 McPherson Street, Banksmeadow – this site is located adjacent to Proposal site

and is currently operated as a waste facility. While the site was considered to have

insufficient space for both the putrescible and non-putrescible waste areas,

discussions were held with the landowner, however commercial terms could not be

agreed.

The Proposal site, at Banksmeadow, was determined to be the most suitable site for the

Proposal as it is available, has direct access to the Botany Goods line and has sufficient

area to accommodate the operations of the Proposal.

Construction of the Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal

The proposed Site was found to be the most suitable due to its proximity to rail infrastructure

and major road corridors, correct zoning, proximity to the sources of waste feedstock, good

buffers to sensitive receptors, and the lack of competitive alternatives within the region.

The Proposal site is located adjacent to the Botany Goods line, with access to the

Botany Goods line available via an existing connection point on the Asciano Botany

Site.


Page 24


Road access to the Site is available from Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street.

The Site is zoned IN1- General Industrial under the State Environmental Planning

Policy (Port Botany and Port Kembla) 2013 (SEPP (Port Botany), under which

development of the Proposal is permissible with consent.

The Site covers an area of 2.18 ha, allowing sufficient area for safe operation of the

site, including truck queuing area, turning areas and container stacking areas.

The area available also allows sufficient space for handling of both putrescible and

non-putrescible waste on the site, while keeping the waste streams separate.

2.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL NEED

Development of a new waste transfer station at the Site would achieve the Proposal

objectives, establishing greater choice within the Sydney waste management market,

promoting the transport of materials by rail and providing access to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site; particularly for the SSROC Councils.

The Banksmeadow TT would provide choice, competition, efficiency and security for

southern Sydney’s waste management needs. The facility would be a significant piece of

state infrastructure; one that is consistent with NSW Government policy by utilising the

freight rail network to transport waste and facilitating increased recycling and recovery of

waste by providing access to other waste infrastructure developments, which together form

an essential part of Sydney’s long-term waste management strategy.

The Proposal would form part of an integrated waste management solution that would utilise

facilities at Banksmeadow and at Clyde to transport Sydney’s waste to Woodlawn Eco-

Project site for recycling, landfill and energy recovery, to provide a complete remediation

solution to the contaminated mine site and deliver a world-class waste management solution

for Sydney.

It is therefore essential to develop new rail linked waste transfer infrastructure, conveniently

accessible to Local Councils and commercial and industrial waste generators, to facilitate

access to this capacity and thereby serve Sydney’s future waste management needs.




3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The Proposal would involve the construction of a transfer terminal that would containerise

putrescible waste for rail haulage to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, near Goulburn, NSW,

for treatment, recycling and energy recovery. The terminal would also house an area where

loads of non-putrescible waste would be consolidated into semi-trailers for transfer to

resource recovery facilities, such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, for further

recovery of recyclable material.

The Proposal would, once operational, be capable of processing up to 400,000 tonnes (t) of

putrescible waste and 100,000 t of non-putrescible waste per annum for transfer to various

resource recovery facilities.

3.1 INTEGRATION OF THE PROPOSAL WITH VEOLIA’S WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Figure 3-5 schematically shows the integration of the Proposal with Veolia’s other waste

management facilities. A summary of these facilities and the Proposal’s integration with

them is provided below.

Figure 3-5 Integration of proposed Banksmeadow TT with Veolia’s other waste management facilities


Page 26


Woodlawn Eco-Project Site

The Woodlawn Eco-Project site is located south-west of Goulburn, NSW, approximately

250 km south of Sydney. Facilities at the Eco-Project site include the Woodlawn Bioreactor

and the planned Woodlawn Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facility.

The Woodlawn Bioreactor is located in an open-cut mine void from a former copper, lead

and zinc mine, and has been operated as a waste management facility since 2004. The

input limits rates, set under the development consent for the site, are as follows:

900,000 tpa of putrescible waste received via rail from Sydney

100,000 tpa of residual waste from the Woodlawn MBT facility

130,000 tpa of putrescible waste received via road from regional areas.

The Bioreactor is designed to decompose putrescible waste at a faster rate than traditional

landfills, and has a gas capture system installed in order to capture the methane produced

by the decomposing waste. The captured gas is used to produce renewable electricity

through an on-site electricity generation plant.

The Woodlawn MBT facility was approved by the Minister for Planning and will recover

organics and metals from putrescible waste using automated separation technologies. The

organics will be composted and used to rehabilitate areas of the Woodlawn Eco-Project site

which were degraded by the previous mining activities. It has approval to receive up to

280,000 tpa, including 240,000 tpa of mixed waste and 40,000 tpa of green waste.

Putrescible waste received at the Banksmeadow TT would be sent via rail to the Crisps

Creek Intermodal Facility. The containers would then be transferred to trucks and

transported approximately 8 km to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site for treatment and

disposal either through the Woodlawn MBT facility or the Woodlawn Bioreactor.

Clyde Transfer Terminal

The Clyde Transfer Terminal (TT) was opened in 2004 in order to facilitate the transport of

waste from Sydney to the Woodlawn Bioreactor. The facility is located in the suburb of

Auburn, in western Sydney, and is licensed to receive 500,000 t of waste per annum. The

Clyde TT receives waste from the Sydney region via waste collection vehicles, which is then

containerised and transported via rail to the Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility near Tarago,

for transfer via road to Woodlawn. The facility is currently operating at capacity. The

Banksmeadow TT is required to meet the shortfall and provide Councils with access to the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility

The Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility (IMF) is used to transfer the waste containers coming

from the Clyde TT from rail to trucks for the final journey to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site,

which is located approximately 8 km away, via road. This Facility has approval to receive up

to 1,180,000 tpa of waste by rail from Sydney, and currently receives approximately

500,000 tpa.

The Crisps Creek IMF would also be used to receive the waste from the Banksmeadow TT

for transfer to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site via the local road network.




Camellia Recycling Centre

The proposed Camellia Recycling Centre will be a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) which

would be constructed at Veolia’s existing site at Camellia, in Sydney’s west. The proposal is

currently undergoing assessment by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Camellia Recycling Centre would process up to 200,000 tpa of mixed non-putrescible

waste including 50,000 tpa of source-separated recyclable material. The facility would

process the mixed non-putrescible waste in order to extract plastics, paper, wood, ferrous

and non-ferrous metals and aggregates through mechanical and manual sorting

technologies. The source-separated material would be consolidated and sold on to

secondary markets.

The Banksmeadow TT would act as a transfer facility for non-putrescible waste and source-

separated recyclables from the southern Sydney region to be sent to recycling facilities,

such as the Camellia Recycling Centre, for processing and recovery.

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF BANKSMEADOW TT

The Proposal incorporates key learnings from Veolia’s other waste management operations,

in particular the Clyde TT. Changes, following Veolia’s operational experience, which have

been introduced to improve odour control at the Clyde TT, have included:

A modification to air extraction systems, in response to clogging/blinding of filters in

original design.

Surfacing to avoid leachate penetration and subsequent odour emission, into the

concrete tipping floor.

These, and other measures, have been adopted from the outset in this proposal. Veolia

continually reviews its waste operations to improve environmental performance and, as

necessary, undertakes alterations to operational management and facility design. The

design of the Banksmeadow TT facility does not preclude the introduction of additional

odour control measures in the future, in the unlikely event that they are required. Potential

additional measures may include:


Adjusting ventilation rates (at present the air extraction system has been over-

designed to accommodate this).

It is noted, that any future implementation of additional odour management measures would

be considered by Veolia based on operational performance of the facility.

The Proposal would involve the remediation of the Site to an appropriate level for

redevelopment of the Site as a transfer terminal, demolition of existing infrastructure on the

Site, and the development of a new waste transfer terminal building, as well as associated

road and rail infrastructure, including:

An enclosed building for the unloading and handling of waste, with environmental

controls such as dust suppression and odour control systems (terminal building).

Office buildings and amenities.

Rail sidings for the loading of containers onto trains for rail transport to Crips Creek

IMF (Veolia sidings).


Page 28


An access road for putrescible and non-putrescible waste trucks entering and exiting

the facility from Beauchamp Road, including incoming and outgoing weighbridges to

check the waste type and weight of the waste being delivered to the facility.

A hardstand area for temporary storage and manoeuvring of full and empty sealed

shipping containers prior to loading on to trains (Container storage area).

The proposed layout of the Banksmeadow TT is shown in Figure 3-6. Further detailed site

plans are included in Appendix B.





Page 30


Figure 3-6 Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal – Proposed layout




TERMINAL BUILDING 3.2.1

The terminal building would be of steel portal frame construction with steel cladding and

concrete slab floor. The terminal would be divided into two areas via a concrete block wall,

in order to separately receive up to 400,000 tpa of putrescible waste and up to 100,000 tpa

of non-putrescible waste. An access doorway would be installed in the wall to allow access

between the two sections of the building, for transfer of equipment and waste, as required.

The terminal building would be raised, allowing for provision of 23 car parking spaces

underneath for staff and visitor parking.

Each area would be fully enclosed, with the exception of vehicle access openings and an air

extraction system that would have a single point of exhaust. The building would comprise

concrete slab flooring and upturned concrete walls to allow stockpiling of material. Each

area would be fitted with a dust suppression system, a fire deluge system and a single

vehicular access. The non-putrescible area, which would be approximately 1,600 m2 in size,

would contain concrete bays for recyclable material which has either been source-separated

or is separated from incoming mixed waste loads (bulky items, for instance), and a large

area for stockpiling of non-putrescible waste. The waste would be transferred from the

terminal floor to outgoing trucks via a loading zone. The covered loading zone, which

incorporates a weighbridge, would sit below the level of the non-putrescible area floor on the

west side of the building.

The putrescible waste area, approximately 2,000 m2 in size, would be serviced by two

compactors on the western side of the building. The compactors would compress the waste

into a bale, which would then be inserted into transport containers via travelling gantry

cranes. This area would also be serviced by an odour control system.

A maintenance area and a diesel tank would be situated on the north-western side of the

terminal building.

OFFICE BUILDINGS 3.2.2

The main office building would be situated at the front of the terminal building, adjacent to

the McPherson Street entrance.

Additionally, the double weighbridge for incoming and outgoing waste trucks along the

internal access road from the Beauchamp Road entrance would incorporate an office for the

weighbridge operators.

An amenities block would be provided for truck drivers accessing the Site. The amenities

block would be located centrally to the Site, adjacent to the point where the inbound trucks

access the terminal building.

VEOLIA SIDINGS 3.2.3

Two new, private rail sidings (Veolia sidings) would be constructed on the north-western

side of the Site, which would replace two existing sidings which currently occupy this space.

The two Veolia sidings would be approximately 400 metres long and have the capacity to

load up to 42 wagons in total.

The Veolia sidings would form part of Asciano’s Botany Site, consisting of a number of

existing rail sidings adjacent to the Veolia sidings. As shown below, the Asciano Botany site


Page 32


connects with the main Botany Goods line (referred to in this location as the Botany Yard)

via an existing connection point on the eastern end of Departure Road 2, from Port Botany.

The two Veolia sidings would have a concrete hardstand area in between the tracks to allow

manoeuvring of container handlers. The area between the sidings and the terminal building

would also be concrete hardstand to allow for container handling activities including

temporary container storage. Man proof fencing would be installed on the boundary

between the site and the main rail corridor.

Figure 3-7 shows a schematic of the Veolia sidings and their connection to Asciano’s

sidings and the Botany Goods line.

ACCESS ROADS AND PARKING 3.2.4

The Banksmeadow TT would have two vehicular accesses, via the existing traffic lights at

Beauchamp Rd and Perry St, and via McPherson Street.

The Beauchamp Road entrance would be used for vehicles delivering putrescible and non-

putrescible waste. The vehicles would be weighed over the incoming weighbridge and

weighed again upon leaving the Site, via the outgoing weighbridge. This entrance would

include untarping area for incoming vehicles prior to the incoming weighbridge. Vehicles

would turn around within the terminal building, before depositing their waste and exiting via

the Beauchamp Road access. Swept path diagrams for site vehicle movements are shown

on the site plans, included as Appendix B to this EIS. Further details on waste management

at the terminal and site operations are provided in sections 3.5 and 8.4, below.

The McPherson Street entrance would be used for semi-trailers collecting non-putrescible

waste from the Banksmeadow TT for transport to a recycling facility, and for light vehicle

access and parking. Twenty three car parking spaces would be located beneath the terminal

building.

Semi-trailers entering the Site via the McPherson Street entrance would use the concrete

hardstand in front of the terminal building to reverse into the non-putrescible waste loading

dock. The loading dock would incorporate a weighbridge, which would weigh the semi-

trailers after loading has taken place.

CONTAINER STORAGE 3.2.5

A container handling and storage area would be established in the north-western corner of

the Site. The area would comprise a concrete hardstand area of approximately 0.17 ha for

the storage and handling of empty and full containers.




Figure 3-7 Schematic layout of the Asciano Botany Yard Sidings


Page 34


3.3 CONSTRUCTION

The construction period for the Proposal would be approximately 11 months, commencing

early 2015.

Construction hours would be restricted to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 1pm

Saturdays. No construction work would be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

Construction of the Banksmeadow TT would incorporate five principal phases:

Stage 1 –Site preparation, remediation and demolition.

Stage 2 – Removal of the UPSS and associated remediation works.

Stage 3 –Bulk earthworks, installation of drainage systems and utilities and formation

of hardstand areas.

Stage4 –Erection of the transfer terminal building and offices.

Stage 5 –Rail construction, including the placement of sleepers and tracks.

The following sections detail the phases of construction for the Proposal.

SITE PREPARATION 3.3.1

Site preparation and demolition of existing structures is expected to take approximately 21

weeks. Preparation and demolition of the Site would include the following:

Site establishment: Site establishment would take approximately two weeks and

include the development of a compound with portable offices and amenities with

connection to utility services.

Demolition: This phase would take approximately 18 weeks and involve the

demolition of the two main engineering buildings and four smaller structures

(including the removal of approximately 3,200 m2 of asbestos material), and the

removal of approximately 650 m2 of the existing asphalt driveway and parking area.

As much of the exterior building material has been identified as asbestos, demolition

works would be undertaken by a licensed asbestos contractor and the material

disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility. Once the asbestos and brick cladding

has been removed from the Site, the steel portal frames of the buildings would be

dismantled. Works would also include removal of steel cladding, the demolition of

brick and concrete structures and the removal of external concrete and asphalt

pavements. Materials from demolition would be stockpiled and separated for disposal

or treated for reuse. Materials that would not be reused will be transferred to an

authorised disposal or recycling facility.

Clearing and grubbing: Clearing and grubbing would take approximately four days

and involve the removal of grass and trees as well as the grubbing of roots and

stumps, including two areas of mature tree growth and shrubs along the western

boundary. Organic matter would be removed from Site and disposed of at a licensed

facility. It would also involve the stripping of topsoil, which would be stockpiled for on-

Site reuse or disposed to an authorised disposal facility.

UPSS REMOVAL 3.3.2

The areas of the Site containing and impacted by the underground petroleum storage

system (UPSS) would be delineated from the broader Site. Construction works, other than




remediation and removal works, would not commence within this area until the Site has

been validated and deemed safe. The remediation works associated with the removal of the

UPSS would comprise:

Removal of the contents of the UPSS: Removal of the contents of the UPSS would

be undertaken by an appropriately licensed liquid waste contractor, using equipment

safe for use with flammable liquids, and disposed of to an appropriately licensed

liquid waste facility.

Purging the UPSS: Purging the UPSS would remove any product vapour and would

be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 4976-2008 The removal

and disposal of underground petroleum storage tanks.

Removal of the UPSS: Excavation around the UPSS and removal of the evacuated

UPSS and associated contamination, under the supervision of an environmental

consultant. Groundwater observed to contain contamination would be pumped out for

disposal at an appropriate location.

Validation: Sampling and validation of the UPSS impacted area and associated

groundwater to confirm that the adopted remediation acceptance criteria, as outlined

in the remedial action plan or site environmental management plan for the Site, is

achieved.

Removal of the underground petroleum storage systems (UPSS) has been discussed as a

separate phase, as it would be undertaken by a specialist contractor. Further detail on the

management of contamination at the Site and the removal of the UPSS is presented in

Section 8.1.

BULK EARTHWORKS 3.3.3

Phase two of construction would include bulk earthworks, construction of stormwater

drainage systems, and utilities installation. This phase would cover a construction period of

approximately four months and involve the use of equipment such as: trucks, dozers,

scrapers, graders, rollers, backhoes, air compressors and compaction equipment. This

phase of construction would include:

Bulk earthworks: This would involve minor excavation of portions of the Site as well

as the placement of fill to create grade for the rail. The bulk earthworks would have a

construction period of approximately 12 weeks. In locations where fill placement

would form a capping layer over soil contamination, a marker layer, comprising a

brightly coloured high-density polyethylene (HDPE), would be established above the

contaminated soil. Installation of the marker layer and the capping layer would be

inspected by an environmental consultant and surveyed. This information would be

documented within a site environmental management plan (SEMP), prepared for the

Site.

Stormwater drainage: The construction of the stormwater drainage system would

involve the excavation of trenches for the construction of open stormwater channels,

pipes and structures across the Site, followed by the laying of stormwater pipes,

construction of drainage structures, and backfilling of trenches. On-site detention

basins and bioretention areas would be formed and stabilised. Stormwater

infrastructure within the Keith Engineering site would largely be installed above

ground, connected to the transfer terminal building, and would be installed once the

building has been constructed. The provision of stormwater drainage systems would

take approximately four weeks.


Page 36


Utility services: Connection to utility services (including electricity, sewer, water, fire,

gas and telecommunications) would take approximately two weeks and include

excavation of trenches, laying of combined utility services pipes, conduits and

structures, and then backfilling.

ERECTION OF STRUCTURES 3.3.4

Phase four of construction would involve construction of the pavement, hardstand areas and

transfer terminal slab and structure, and have a construction time of approximately 11

weeks. Equipment necessary for this phase of construction would include backhoes,

excavators, rollers, trucks, concrete-pumping equipment, air compressors, concrete

vibrators and saws, mobile cranes and welders. This phase of construction would include:

Pavement and hardstand construction: The construction of pavement and

hardstand would have a construction period of approximately one month and involve

the placement and construction of the base and sub-base as well as the construction

of kerbs, gutter and concrete barriers. In areas where pavement and hardstand would

form part of a capping layer above contaminated soil, its placement would be

observed and verified by an environmental consultant and the material used,

thickness of material, and final surface level, would be documented within the SEMP.

Construction of building foundations and slab: The construction of the building

foundations and slab would involve excavation of footings, laying formwork, placing

reinforcement, concrete pouring and curing. It would take approximately one month to

complete.

Construction of Transfer Terminal building: The Transfer Terminal building

construction would take approximately three months to complete and include the

erection of the walls, portal frames and cladding for the shed. It would also involve the

installation of the ventilation systems, lighting and plumbing, and mechanical fit out of

the building.

Installation of compactors: The compactors would be transported to Site and

installed using cranes.

VEOLIA SIDINGS CONSTRUCTION 3.3.5

The final phase for construction of the Banksmeadow TT would be the placement of

sleepers and tracks for a length of rail approximately 15 m wide and 500 m long. This phase

would require the use of delivery trucks and mobile cranes.

3.4 PLANT AND COMISSIONING

Commissioning of the Banksmeadow TT is expected to take approximately one month

following construction and equipment installation. The commissioning would involve testing

of the compactors, odour extraction units, ventilation systems, weighbridges and deluge

systems, and checking installation of the equipment. Start-up procedures and safety

systems would also be tested at this stage.

Site operational management plans would be finalised at this time, and procedures within

the plans tested and modified as appropriate.




3.5 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS

As discussed above, the Banksmeadow TT would integrate with Veolia’s existing waste

management facilities, as shown in Figure 3-5.

Municipal, commercial and industrial customers from within the Sydney region would

transport waste by road to the Banksmeadow TT. Trucks would enter the facility via the

Beauchamp Road access road, and unload the waste into designated areas onto the floor of

the TT building.

As shown, the Proposal would involve the management of two distinct materials streams,

being general solid waste (putrescible) and general solid waste (non-putrescible) (both

including mixed household waste and mixed commercial and industrial (C&I) waste). Each

stream would be processed in a separate section of the terminal building. The terminal

building would be enclosed, with the exception of vehicle access openings and an air

extraction system that would have a single point of exhaust.

PUTRESCIBLE WASTE 3.5.1

The Banksmeadow TT would be designed to receive and containerise up to 400,000 tpa of

general solid waste (putrescible) for transfer via rail to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

Details of the waste received, including identification of the vehicle, weight, nature and origin

of the waste, are recorded at the incoming weighbridge. Once the waste has been

deposited on the floor of the enclosed building, the material would be inspected to verify

information provided at the weighbridge is consistent with the waste received. The

deposited waste would be visually checked for non-conforming waste and easily

extractable, bulk, recyclable material. Any non-conforming waste identified would be

isolated from other materials on the tipping floor and the customer contacted immediately

and requested to remove the waste. Easily extractable recyclable material would be

transferred from the putrescible waste section of the terminal building to the non-putrescible

waste side using a front end loader via the access doorway between the two areas of the TT

building. Further information on the process for recording and reconciling waste received at

the site is provided in Section 8.4.

The remaining material would then be pushed by a front end loader to one of two chutes

that would feed the waste compactors. A scale with an electric display would inform the

front-end loader operator when the compactor is approaching the maximum capacity of

31.5 t, which is constrained by road transport requirements between the Crisps Creek

Intermodal Facility and the Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

Once the correct weight is loaded, the compactor would compress the waste into a

consolidated bale that is inserted into specially designed shipping containers, which have

seals to prevent the release of any leachate and carbon filters to impede the release of

odour from the waste during transport. Once the waste has been inserted into the container,

any residual waste is removed from around the container door, and the container is sealed.

The container would then be moved outside the terminal building where a container handler

would transport it either directly to a waiting train, or to a container storage area, ready for

transport on the next available train. The compacting and filling process would take

approximately 20 minutes per container. It is proposed that two compactors would operate

at the Banksmeadow TT, allowing for regular maintenance of the compactors as part of the

continued operation of the facility.


Page 38


The Proposal would have the capacity to containerise approximately189 t of putrescible

waste per hour and would be open to receive waste 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Subject to approval, the Proposal is expected to start accepting waste by late 2015 to early

2016. Initially the terminal is expected to process 200,000 tpa of putrescible waste,

increasing at 50,000 tpa until it reaches its capacity of 400,000 t. Table 3-6 outlines the

expected annual increase in putrescible waste that would be processed by the facility, and

the corresponding number of containers required.

Table 3-6 Expected annual putrescible waste throughput of Banksmeadow TT

Year Annual putrescible

waste tonnage

Number of Containers (p/a) Number of containers (p/w)

2016 200,000 6,350 122

2017 250,000 7,935 152

2018 300,000 9,525 183

2019 350,000 11,120 214

2020 400,000 12,700 245

RAIL OPERATIONS 3.5.2

Pacific National would act as the rail operator for the Banksmeadow TT and would operate

one train per day, up to six days per week to service the Proposal. Figure 3-7 shows the

arrangement of sidings on the Asciano Botany Site and within the Botany Rail Yard, which

the Veolia sidings would connect to.

Trains travelling into the Port Botany precinct, including trains accessing the Asciano Botany

Site, travel via the main Botany Goods lines, entering the Botany Yard on Arrival Roads #1

and #2. Trains accessing the Asciano Botany Site from this direction currently perform a

run-around movement in the Botany Yard, travelling from the Arrival Roads to Departure

Road #2. The trains servicing the Banksmeadow TT would need to perform a similar

movement to access the Site. The time to complete this movement from the Botany Yard to

the Asciano Botany Site is estimated to be in the order of 15 – 20 minutes.

Once in the Asciano Botany Site, Pacific National would shunt the wagons on the two Veolia

sidings in order to allow Veolia to undertake container handling operations. These would

include unloading of the empty containers from the train using a container handler and

loading full containers onto the wagons. Once the wagons have been loaded the train would

be assembled ready for transport to the Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility.

The option to operate the train as a haul in service may be constrained by future increases

in rail traffic densities in the Port Botany precinct. Mitigation of this issue, should this be the

case, would include:

Change the method of operating to a ‘pull-pull’ train with a locomotive at the lead and

rear of the train in line with other operations in the Port Botany precinct. This would

reduce the run-around time but still requires access via Departure Road #2 which is

estimated to be in the order of 5 – 10 minutes.




Develop an additional siding to ‘by-pass’ the Botany Yard siding to provide direct

access to the Asciano Botany Site.

Train operations are proposed to be staged over three phases to align with the ramp up

requirements of the Banksmeadow TT. The one train per day would operate up to six days

a week with additional wagons to increase capacity.

Phase 1 – Single Locomotive up to 22 wagons (345 m) train

Phase 2 – Single Locomotive up to 26 wagons (405 m) train

Phase 3 – Double Locomotive 31 wagons – 42 wagons (495 – 660 m) train.

Table 3-7 provides the number of wagons required per train based on operating six trains

per week and the expected ramp up in tonnage over the first five years of operation.

Table 3-7 Wagons required per train correlated to annual putrescible waste throughput

Year Annual putrescible

waste tonnage (tpa)

Number of wagons on the Train Phase

2016 200,000 22 1

2017 250,000 26 2

2018 300,000 31 3

2019 350,000 36 3

2020 400,000 42 3

Phase 1 & 2

For the initial stage of operations, up to 250,000 tonnes per annum, the train would operate

with a single locomotive and be able to be fully assembled completely clear of the main rail

line, i.e. wholly within the Banksmeadow TT site and Asciano’s Botany site. During this

stage, trains would be likely to occupy the main line for approximately 5 - 10 minutes on

departure, to allow the train to be hauled directly out from the Veolia Sidings.

Phase 3

To ensure that the train is able to be fully assembled clear of the main line at maximum

capacity; ARTC and Pacific National are currently in discussions to identify an appropriate

location for a future rail siding off the main Botany Goods line to bypass Botany Yard to

access the Asciano Botany site for the Banksmeadow TT requirements. When constructed,

this siding would accommodate the predicted additional port freight rail movements by

allowing trains to exit the Botany Goods Line direct into the Asciano Site and Banksmeadow

Transfer Terminal site and separate these train services from the flow of train movements

on the Botany Goods Line using Botany Yard to access the stevedores. The conceptual

siding is shown in Figure 3-8.


Page 40


Figure 3-8 Schematic Layout of the Botany Yard Siding with option for a ‘by-pass siding’




Pacific National is also in discussion with ARTC regarding potential pathways for the train in

and out of the Banksmeadow TT site. The facility is not expected to be operational until the

end of 2015 and therefore potential pathways provided are only indicative at this stage and

based on current operating conditions. In addition to train movements in the direct vicinity of

the Proposal site, potential constraints along the entire train route, from Banksmeadow to

Crisps Creek need to be considered when determining appropriate pathways. This includes

current train operations at Crisps Creek, such as hours of operation and the passenger train

schedule at the Crisps Creek end.

Timing of train movements

Based on the above-listed considerations, Table 3-8 provides a conceptual operating plan

for the proposed train from the Banksmeadow site.

Table 3-8 Indicative train movement schedule

Train Indicative Scheduling (24hr)

Departure from Crisps Creek 19:00

Arrival at Banksmeadow 00:30

Departure from Banksmeadow 08:00

Arrival at Crisps Creek 13:00

Based on this scheduling, the process of stripping and re-loading the wagons at

Banksmeadow would take approximately seven and a half hours. During the time wagons

are on the Site, the provisioning of the locomotive would occur to enable the train to be

ready for the outbound journey to Crisps Creek. The provisioning of locomotives would

require the locomotive to be taken to another yard, such as Clyde or Cooks River, for re-

fuelling.

Alternatively, the locomotive would be exchanged to replace the inbound locomotive with

another fully provisioned locomotive. Depending on which yard these locomotives return to,

the exchange could occur en-route, or if these exchange movements are required, then

travel on the metropolitan passenger network may be required. These movements would be

planned to occur while the train is being stripped and re-loaded and would therefore be

outside the peak commuter period. In order to avoid additional rail movements for this

locomotive exchange, Pacific National would also review opportunities to utilise an existing

rail movement into and out of the Port Botany precinct during this time to exchange the

locomotives.

NON-PUTRESCIBLE WASTE 3.5.3

The Banksmeadow TT would be able to receive up to 100,000 tpa of general solid waste

(non-putrescible), which would be consolidated into semi-trailers within the transfer building

for transfer to resource recovery facilities, such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre,

for recovery of recyclables prior to reprocessing.

Segregated loads of green waste, timber, concrete and scrap metal would be directed to

specific storage bays. Mixed non-putrescible waste would be deposited on the floor of the

terminal building, which would then be visually checked for non-conforming waste and easily

separable, bulk, recyclable material. Any non-conforming waste identified would be isolated

from other materials on the tipping floor and the customer contacted immediately and


Page 42


requested to remove the waste or, if the waste is identified as putrescible waste it would be

transferred to the putrescible waste area of the building via the roller door. Easily

extractable, recyclable material would be removed to the appropriate bay, bin. A front-end

loader would then push the remaining mixed non-putrescible material to the edge of tipping

floor, where an excavator with a grapple arm would be used to load material into an open-

top walking floor trailer.

Up to 16 laden semi-trailers will exit the Banksmeadow TT via McPherson Street per day,

and transfer material to the appropriate recycling or reprocessing facility, depending on

material type. Further details on the weighing, recording and management of wastes

received at the Banksmeadow TT site are provided in Section 8.4.

3.6 PROPOSAL TIMEFRAMES

The intention to undertake the development of the Banksmeadow TT facility was announced

in February 2013, which was shortly followed by a request for Director-General’s

Requirements from the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

It is anticipated that construction of the facility would take approximately 11 months. Table

3-9 provides an overview of the key milestones and estimated timeframes for the

development of the Proposal.

Table 3-9 Key milestones and estimated timeframes for the Banksmeadow TT5

Milestone Estimated timeframe

SSROC Public Announcement February 2013 (completed)

Request for Director General’s Requirements February 2013 (completed)

Department issues Director General’s Requirements April 2013 (completed)

Detailed Design May 2013 to March 2014

Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 to February 2014

Public Exhibition of EIS March 2014

Response to public and agency comments April 2014

Planning Assessment May - November 2014

Department finalises assessment and consults with

council and agencies on draft conditions of consent

(if any)

November 2014

Department issues notice of determination December 2014

Construction January 2015 to November 2015

5 Table based on Ministerial approval, however application may be referred to the PAC




Milestone Estimated timeframe

Operation December 2015

Operational throughput progression

Subject to approval, the Proposal is expected to start accepting waste by late 2015 to early

2016. Initially the terminal is expected to process 200,000 tpa of putrescible waste,

increasing at 50,000 tpa until it reaches its capacity of 400,000 tpa. The facility would

commence receipt of approximately 100,000 tpa non-putrescible waste in 2017. Table 3-10

shows the predicted ramp-up period for the Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal, along with the

estimated yearly waste containers transported to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, the daily

number of putrescible waste trucks and non-putrescible waste trucks that would access the

site.

Table 3-10 Predicted ramp up of Banksmeadow TT proposal

Year Annual

tonnage

Number of

Containers by rail

(per annum)

Number of

putrescible waste

trucks (per day)6

Number of non-

putrescible waste

trucks (per day)7

Total trucks

2016 200,000 6,350 108 0 108

2017 250,000 7,935 135 156 291

2018 300,000 9,525 160 156 316

2019 350,000 11,120 188 156 344

2020 400,000 12,700 215 156 371

As can be seen, the number of trucks accessing the site would gradually increase

throughout the five year ramp up period, reaching maximum operating capacity in 2020.

The impact assessments undertaken for this EIS have assessed the maximum operating

capacity of the site in determining the impacts associated with the Proposal and the

mitigation measures proposed have been identified to mitigate impacts associated with the

Proposal operating at capacity.

6 Based on 5.5 tonnes per putrescible waste truck with the facility operating 6.5 days a week.

7 Based on 2.5 tonnes per incoming non-putrescible waste truck and 22 tonnes per outgoing semi-trailer.


Page 44


4 EXISTING LAND USE

The Site proposed for the Banksmeadow TT incorporates two areas of land – 14

Beauchamp Road and 34-36 McPherson Street. 14 Beauchamp Road is currently owned by

Asciano and incorporates part of Lot 2 DP 1006865. 34-36 McPherson Street is owned by

Keith Engineering and incorporates Lot 1 DP 435497 and Lots A & B DP 366725. Figure 4-9

shows the existing land uses.

The following sections describe the historic and current land uses of the Asciano and Keith

Engineering owned portions of the Site. Subsequent sections detail the existing and

proposed future land uses of the area surrounding the Proposal site.




Figure 4-9 Existing land use


Page 46


4.1 ASCIANO LAND

SITE HISTORY 4.1.1

The Asciano owned land that forms part of the Site was developed as a railway siding in the

1950s. Review of historic aerial photographs indicate that until this time the site was largely

vacant and may have been used for market gardens. The historical title records indicate that

in 1924 the land was used concurrently for the purposes of railway activities and

commercial/industrial development. Between 1922 and 2002 the land was owned and used

by the NSW State rail authority (in its various forms). It was used for activities such as train

shunting, minor wagon maintenance, container transfer between road and rail, and

locomotive refuelling.

Ownership of the site was transferred to Pacific National (now part of Asciano) in 2002 via

an asset sale by the NSW Government.

CURRENT USE 4.1.2

The Asciano owned portion of the site is presently used for rolling stock storage. However,

the rail sidings and a large portion of the Site are largely unused. The topography of the site

is relatively level, as a result of various filling activities that have occurred on the Asciano

site over time. The south-eastern portion of the Asciano site is relatively higher than

surrounding areas, while at the north western end of the site, towards the ARTC land, there

is a raised soil platform.

The central portion of the site is covered with unsealed hardstand, comprising unbound road

base and crushed concrete gravels. The eastern portion of the site has recently been

asphalted and jersey curbing has been installed to separate the western rail sidings from the

eastern sidings. There is no formal stormwater drainage system currently on site, and water

falling on the Asciano site has been observed to pond on site and absorb into the

groundwater.

Structures currently on the Asciano owned portion of the site include:

Concrete office building that was formerly used as an office for Pacific National

operations, located adjacent to the northern site boundary and bordering on ARTC

land.

Several masonry and sheet metal clad buildings, located within the central western

portion of the land, associated with the previous rail yard land use.

Covered parking and barbeque area, adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

Temporary office building at the site entry, currently used by Patricks.

The site has been largely unused and the western boundary of the site is overgrown with

exotic species. Recent activities on the site include the transport of old rail carriages for

deconstruction and recycling and the temporary use of the site by Patricks Stevedoring for

handling of containers.

Access to the site is from the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street, where an

access gate has been installed to prevent unauthorised ingress to the site. Traffic

movements on the site are limited to the temporary use of the site by Patricks. This use of

the site would cease prior to commencement of construction of the Proposal.




Figure 4-10 Patricks temporary office building Figure 4-11 Northern portion of Asciano land, adjoining Botany Goods line

4.2 KEITH ENGINEERING LAND

SITE HISTORY 4.2.1

The Keith Engineering owned portion of the Site was first developed for industrial purposes

in 1949. Historic information indicates that prior to this time the site was used for agricultural

purposes, such as market gardens. Historic aerial photographs indicate that, by the 1950s,

several large commercial / industrial buildings had been erected on the Keith Engineering

site.

Between 1951 and 1965 the south-eastern portion of the Keith Engineering site was owned

by Stayseal Products. The remaining portion of the site was owned by Huckson Diecasting

between 1949 and 1972. It is therefore assumed that during these periods the site was used

for die casting, metal fabrication and potentially the manufacture and storage of sealants.

The existing buildings on site were in place by the end of the 1970s and Keith Engineering

purchased the land in 1972. WorkCover records (see Douglas Partners, 2013a, Appendix

E), for the Keith Engineering site indicates that later uses of the site included manufacturing

of abattoir equipment (1993), and industrial machinery and equipment manufacturing (1999

- 2009).

CURRENT USE 4.2.2

The topography of the Keith Engineering site currently slopes from a retaining wall that has

been constructed along the eastern boundary of the site towards the south-west, falling

approximately 0.6 m over 60 m. The ground surface is covered with reinforced concrete slab

floors within the buildings, with exposed pavements of both reinforced concrete and asphalt.

Unsealed portions of the site have been covered with loose gravel and recycled building

aggregate.

Structures on the Keith Engineering site currently include:

A large warehouse that fronts McPherson Street and is constructed from a steel frame

with part brick and asbestos-cement cladding and roof sheeting. This warehouse is

relatively tall (estimated at 15 m RL) and contains gantry cranes. It is known as the main

factory building.


Page 48


A smaller warehouse, located adjacent to the large warehouse, constructed from brick

and sheet metal roofing. This warehouse is joined to an existing office building of similar

construction, on its eastern side.

Several smaller sheds constructed from steel frames with metal cladding.

Several portable site office buildings and industrial storage bins.

Other existing site features included a small substation and adjoining shed and concrete

paving.

Vegetation on the site comprises an area of planted casuarinas along the eastern site

boundary and several planted, mature eucalypts along the McPherson Street frontage.

Stormwater across the site is currently largely uncontrolled. A large part of the runoff flows

to the northern boundary of the site, where it ponds and gradually releases along the freight

railway to the south and into the stormwater drain on McPherson Street, which flows into the

main Springvale Drain and discharges at the Penhryn Estuary. Surface water on the

western portion is currently directed to a series of sumps along the western boundary of the

site, where it is pumped to Council stormwater infrastructure on McPherson Street.

Stormwater collected on warehousing roofs is transferred directly to the Council stormwater

system.

The Keith Engineering site is currently used for a variety of uses. The northern outdoor

boundary is used for skip bin storage (Figure 4-12) and the main factory building is also

primarily used for storage by Keith Engineering, Rosemonts & Co. and Harvest Maid

Dehydrators. It holds items such as truck trailers, stadium collapsible chairs and machinery

used by adjacent buildings (Figure 4-13). The hardstand area of the Keith Engineering site

immediately in front of the large warehouse is currently used to store semi-trailers and

containers.

The smaller sheds on the western boundary of the site are used for small scale commercial

purposes, including metal soldering, fabrication work and carpentry.

Traffic generated on the site is associated with employee movements to and from the site

and the movement of semi-trailers. Access to the site is via McPherson Street.

Figure 4-12 Skip bin storage at northern boundary of Keith Engineering land

Figure 4-13 Storage at main factory building at 34-36 McPherson Street




4.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES

EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USES 4.3.1

The Site is immediately bounded by:

McPherson Street to the south

The Botany Goods line to the west

Asciano owned land and rail sidings to the immediate east (Asciano Botany Site)

Beauchamp Road to the south east

Botany Building Recyclers to the south, east and west.

Figure 4-14 shows the existing land uses surrounding the Proposal site.


Page 50


Figure 4-14 Surrounding land uses (existing)




The Botany Industrial Precinct (BIP) is located within the immediate vicinity of the Site, to

the north and east. The BIP is owned and operated by Orica, Qenos and Huntsman, and

includes the following industrial related activities:

Chemical manufacturing (Orica’s ChlorAlkali plant)

Groundwater treatment (Orica)

Surfactants manufacturing (Huntsman)

Plastics manufacturing, including separate plants for olefins, alkathene and alkatuff

(Qenos).

Beyond the BIP, to the north-east is Denison Street, then the Hillsdale Residential area,

which is approximately 250 m from the Site boundary, at the closest point.

To the east of the southern extent of the Asciano Botany Site is the intersection of

Beauchamp Road and Perry Street. Directly to the east of this intersection are small

industrial lots, incorporating small industrial businesses such as car wreckers, repair shops

and panel beater. The residential area of Matraville is located approximately 350 m to the

east of this intersection, along Perry Street. The area to the south-east of the Site is also

characterised by a series of industrial lots. Directly south of the Site is McPherson Street

and then Goodman’s Botany Bay Industrial Estate, which is a series of industrial

warehouses, containing businesses such as party hire, import/export and freight and

customs brokers. Beyond this are further, large industrial lots, which extend along the

foreshore of Botany Bay to Port Botany.

The Port Botany precinct is one of Australia’s most important freight terminals for

containerised goods and bulk liquids and gases, handling over 24 million tonnes of freight

(NSW Ports, 2013) and generating around $10.5 billion per year (Infrastructure NSW, 2012).

Materials handled at Port Botany include chemicals, textiles, waste products, cereals and

oil, exporting to countries such as China and the United States of America (USA) and

importing from Europe, Asia and the USA.

Adjacent to Port Botany, is Sydney’s domestic and international airport. In 2012, over

36.9 million passengers and nearly 615,000 tonnes of freight passed through the airport

terminals (Sydney Airport Corporation Limited, 2013).

Beyond the freight rail line to the south-west and west are a series of large industrial sites,

currently used for freight warehousing and storage. Directly to the west of the freight rail line

is Orica’s Southlands site, which is approximately 20 ha of undeveloped industrial-zoned

land currently dedicated to the Botany Groundwater Cleanup Project. It contains

groundwater extraction wells and pipework which transfers the groundwater to the

Groundwater Treatment Plant at the Botany Industrial Park.

The Site also wraps around a triangular portion of land on McPherson Street, which is used

by Botany Building Recyclers for the recycling of construction and demolition waste

materials. The recycling yard is elevated above the Site and has a retaining wall along the

boundary. Operation of the Botany Building Recyclers is not associated with the Proposal.


Page 52


PROPOSED AND FUTURE SURROUNDING LAND 4.3.2USES

This section provides an overview of proposed and future land uses surrounding the

Proposal site. The cumulative impacts of the Proposal with these proposed and future

surrounding land uses have been assessed and further detail is provided in Section 8.15.

Figure 4-15 shows the location of the proposed developments in relation to the Proposal

site.




Figure 4-15 Surrounding land uses (proposed)


Page 54


Port Botany Expansion Project

The Port Botany Expansion Project is due to be operational in 2014. The expansion was

one of the largest port projects to be undertaken in Australia in the last 30 years (NSW Ports

2013), and included:

The design, construction and procurement of a third terminal, currently scheduled to

be operational in 2014.

Grade separation on Penrhyn Road, which comprises an elevated two lane

roundabout to provide a safer and more efficient operational environment in Port

Botany.

Banksia Street overpass, which comprises an elevated pedestrian bridge over the

Port Botany freight line at Banksia Street.

1,850 m of additional wharf face for five extra shipping berths.

60 ha of reclaimed terminal land.

Deep water berths with depths of up to 16.5 m.

Dredging of approximately 7.8 million m3 of fill material to create shipping channels

and berth boxes.

Dedicated road access to the new terminal.

Additional rail sidings to provide rail access to the new terminal area.

Additional tug berths and facilities.

Rehabilitation and expansion of Penrhyn Estuary to create a secure estuarine

environment.

Community facilities, including a boat ramp, look outs, pathways.

Orica Southlands development

P&I has recently approved subdivision of 13.1 ha of the Orica Southlands site at

Banksmeadow to create a new industrial estate. Orica intend for this industrial estate to

become a major industrial and warehousing estate servicing Port Botany and the Sydney

Metropolitan Area (Orica, 2013). The site will be subdivided into 12 new lots and the

western six lots on the Southlands site are to be sold with development approval for high

quality industrial and warehouse purposes.

Qenos – Botany Industrial Park

There are proposed operational changes at the Qenos site, in the Botany Industrial Park

bounded by Beauchamp Road, Denison Street and Wentworth Avenue. Qenos is the sole

manufacturer and supplier of polyethylene products in Australia. On 28 August 2012, the

NSW Government granted approval for DA 35-97 MOD 2, a modification that will involve

Qenos:

Constructing and operating a proposed Hydrogen unloading bay

Contemporising various reporting requirements.

Bunnings Warehouse – Hillsdale

A Bunnings warehouse is proposed to be constructed at 140-148 Denison Street, to the

south of Smith Street. At the time of writing this report, this proposal was at Development

Application stage and being reviewed by the South East Joint Regional Planning Panel.




Asciano Botany Site

Asciano are considering developing the remaining portion of the Asciano Botany Site in the

future. While the ultimate use of the site has not been determined, Asciano and Veolia are

working together to ensure that design of the shared entrance to the site caters for Veolia’s

proposed truck movements, as well as up to 100 future truck movements, that may be

associated with Asciano’s future use of the site.


Page 56


5 STATUTORY PLANNING AND CONTEXT

5.1 PLANNING ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The following sections outline the planning assessment process that is applicable to the

Proposal and summarises environmental planning legislation that has been taken into

considered during preparation of this EIS.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT 5.1.1ACT 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) provide the framework for

the assessment of the environmental impact of proposed development in NSW.

The objectives of the EP&A Act include:

(a) the encouragement of:

i) the proper management, development, and conservation of natural and artificial

resources…

ii) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use and development of

land…

vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native

animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological

communities, and their habitats;

iv) ecologically sustainable development…

(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in

environmental planning and assessment.

Part 3 of the EP&A Act provides for the formation of environmental planning instruments

(EPIs), which can take the form of local environmental management plans (LEPs) or State

Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). EPIs contain provisions that control the

permissibility of development and identify when development approval is required. EPIs that

are applicable to the Proposal are:

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SEPP

(State and Regional Development)).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Port Botany and Port Kembla) 2013 (SEPP

(Port Botany)).

Botany Bay LEP.

Randwick LEP.

These are discussed in more detail below.

Part 4 of the EP&A Act establishes the classification of development as permissible without

consent, permissible with consent and prohibited, and the requirements for assessment of

development that is permissible with consent. The permissibility of the Banksmeadow TT

proposal is determined by the EPIs applicable to the Site. This is discussed below.




Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act identifies the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (the

Minister) as the consent authority for development that is identified as State Significant

Development (SSD). Division 4.1 also identifies provisions of other environmental and

planning legislation that does not apply to SSD and approvals required under other

legislation that must be applied consistently with any approval granted for SSD under the

EP&A Act.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES 5.1.2

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

The aims of the SEPP (State and Regional Development) are:

To identify development that is State Significant Development.

To identify development that is State Significant Infrastructure and critical State

Significant Infrastructure.

To confer functions on joint regional planning panels to determine development

applications.

Under Clause 23, Schedule 1 of SEPP (State and Regional Development) the

Banksmeadow TT is considered to be:

development for the purpose of resource recovery or recycling facilities that handle

more than 100, 000 tonnes per year of waste.

The development is therefore classified as State Significant and is assessable under

Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act.

Under Clause 11 of SEPP (State and Regional Development), development control plans

(DCPs), developed under LEPs, are not applicable to SSD.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Port Botany and Port Kembla) 2013

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Port Botany and Port Kembla) 2013 (SEPP (Port

Botany)) was gazetted on 24 May 2013. The purpose of the SEPP (Port Botany) is to

provide a consistent planning regime for the development and delivery of infrastructure on

land in Port Botany and Port Kembla and to define development that is permissible with and

without consent within land in and around the leased port areas. Land within the Botany

LGA that is affected by the provisions of the SEPP (Port Botany) include, the Banksmeadow

Industrial Precinct, part of the Hillsdale Industrial area, and part of the Hale Street Industrial

Precinct as well as Foreshore Drive, Foreshore Beach and Port Botany.

Under SEPP (Port Botany) the Banksmeadow TT site is zoned IN1 – General Industrial.

Development of waste or resource management facilities is permissible within this zone with

consent. When considering whether to grant approval to the Proposal, P&I must have

regard to the objectives of the IN1 – General Industrial zone, which are as follows:

To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

To encourage employment opportunities.

To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.


Page 58


To facilitate and encourage port related industries that will contribute to the growth

and diversification of trade through the port.

To enable development for the purposes of business premises or office premises

associated with, and ancillary to, port facilities or industries.

To encourage ecologically sustainable development.

The Proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone as it would provide an industrial

use for the land, provide employment opportunities, provide infrastructure that is supportive

to other industrial land uses within the area and is consistent with the principles of

ecologically sustainable development (ESD).




Figure 5-16 SEPP (Port Botany) – Zoning


Page 60


The SEPP (Port Botany) repealed the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy

(Major Development) 2005, which designated the ‘Port Botany site’, including the

Banksmeadow TT site, as a State Significant Site.

Clause 22 of the SEPP (Port Botany) prescribes certain matters that the consent authority

must consider when assessing a proposal within the Port Botany area that requires

earthworks. These matters and the section where they are addressed within this EIS are

described in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11 SEPP (Port Botany) matters for consideration for ancillary earthworks

Matter for consideration Summary of assessment outcome Section addressed

(a) the likely disruption of, or any

detrimental effect on, drainage

patterns and soil stability in the

locality of the development

The Proposal has been designed to

largely maintain the drainage patterns

from the Site. Increased runoff as a result

of the Proposal would be mitigated

through the provision of on-site detention

(OSD) and the capture of stormwater for

reuse within the transfer terminal

building.

8.2

(b) the effect of the development

on the likely future use or

redevelopment of the land

The proposed works would improve

drainage conditions on the Proposal site,

which would be beneficial for the future

use or redevelopment of the land.

8.2

(c) the quality of the fill or the soil

to be excavated, or both

Imported fill would be free from

contamination and meet engineering

design standards.

Contaminated material removed from

Site would be disposed of at an

appropriately licensed landfill.

8.1

(d) the effect of the development

on the existing and likely amenity

of adjoining properties

The Proposal would result in the rising of

ground levels on the Proposal site and

erection of structure of a height

approximately 15 metres above ground

level (ABG). Cladding of the structure

would be sympathetic to the local

environs to minimise impacts on the

amenity of adjoining properties.

8.14





(e) the source of any fill material

and the destination of any

excavated material

The following criteria would be applicable

to all soils imported to the Site:

The soils must be legally able to be

imported onto the Site in accordance

with the Protection of the

Environment Operations (Waste)

Regulation 2005 and any required

Council approvals.

The soils must meet the

The soils must meet the geotechnical

requirements for their proposed use.

It is preferable for all soil materials

imported onto the Site to comprise

Virgin Excavated Natural Material

(VENM) or Excavated Natural

Material (ENM).

8.1

Appendix E

(f) the likelihood of disturbing

relics

There is a low likelihood of disturbing

relics on the Site as excavation is not

proposed for the majority of the Site and

the Site is heavily disturbed and

industrialised.

8.11;

8.12

(g) the proximity to, and potential

for adverse impacts on, any

waterway, drinking water

catchment or environmentally

sensitive area

There is a low likelihood of adversely

impacting on waterways, drinking water

catchments or environmentally sensitive

area. Stormwater drainage will be largely

unchanged, flowing into existing systems

with minimal disturbance.

8.3

(h) any appropriate measures

proposed to avoid, minimise or

mitigate the impacts of the

development

A summary of mitigation measures for

the Proposal is presented in Section 10.

Mitigation measures particular to

earthworks with be included in the

Contractor Site Management Plan

(CSMP), Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) and

Operational Environmental Management

Plan (OEMP) developed for the Site,

including the development of Erosion and

Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs).

10


Page 62



(i) the potential impact on

groundwater and groundwater

dependent ecosystems

It is likely that groundwater would be

encountered during removal of an

existing undergrounds storage tank and

installation of foundations; however,

impacts to groundwater would be of short

duration and the operational phase of the

Proposal would not cause a change to

groundwater flows or groundwater

dependent ecosystems.

8.1

8.2

The SEPP (Port Botany) also identifies items and places of heritage significance within the

land to which the SEPP applies. Under the SEPP (Port Botany) the Main Administration

building on the Chlor-Alkali Orica site, and a mature fig tree adjacent to the building, are

listed as of local heritage significance. The Orica site is located immediately adjacent to the

Asciano lands; however, it is noted that there is a portion of the Asciano land that is not part

of this development proposal that is between the Proposal site and the Orica site (see,

Figure 1-4).

Potential impacts on the heritage values of the Orica administration building and fig tree are

discussed in Section 8.12.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The applicable aims of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) are:

to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by:

(e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to

particular types of infrastructure development

(f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development

during the assessment process or prior to development commencing. (ISEPP, Cl 2)

Under Clause 86 of the ISEPP, proposed development that requires excavation in, above or

adjacent to rail corridors must be referred to the rail authority for the rail corridor. The

Banksmeadow TT would require excavation and installation of railway tracks within 25 m of

the Port Botany Goods Line; hence the ARTC, which is the rail authority for the rail corridor,

will be notified by P&I of the Banksmeadow TT proposal. The concurrence of ARTC would

be required prior to P&I granting development consent.

Clause 86 of the ISEPP prescribes a number of matters that ARTC must consider before

granting concurrence to a development that requires excavation within the proximity of a

railway corridor. These matters are:

The potential effects of the development (whether alone or cumulatively with other

development or proposed development) on:

The safety or structural integrity of existing or proposed rail infrastructure facilities in

the rail corridor.

The safe and effective operation of existing or proposed rail infrastructure facilities in

the rail corridor.

What measures are proposed, or could reasonably be taken, to avoid or minimise

those potential effects. (ISEPP, Cl 86(4)).




Operating on the network would attract Access Fees from the relevant Access Providers on

the intended network route. Access Fees represent revenue for the Access Providers for

provision of access to the network, infrastructure maintenance and upgrades.

Consultation undertaken with ARTC to date is summarised in Section 4.1 and Veolia is

working with their rail operator, Pacific National, who is liaising with ARTC, to develop the

detailed railway track design in accordance with their standards and the requirements of

Pacific National as the rail operator.

Consideration has also been given to Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads –

Interim Guideline (NSW DoP, 2008).

Under Clause 104 of ISEPP, traffic generating developments, including waste transfer

stations, must be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services. The consent authority must

take into consideration any submission that the RMS provides in response to the

application, the accessibility of the site, including:

The efficiency of movement of people and freight to and from the site and the extent

of multi-purpose trips; and

The potential to minimise the need for travel by car and to maximise the movement of

freight in containers or bulk freight by rail; and

Any potential traffic safety, road congestion or parking implications of the

development.

A Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment has been prepared to identify and address the

potential traffic implications of the Proposal, and is summarised in Section 8.3 and

presented in Appendix H.

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development

SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development links the permissibility of an industrial

development proposal to its safety and environmental performance. Certain activities may

involve handling, storing or processing a range of materials, which, in the absence of

controls, may create risk outside of operational borders to people, property or the

environment. Such activities would be defined by SEPP 33 as a 'potentially hazardous

industry' or 'potentially offensive industry'. SEPP 33 applies to any industrial development

proposals which fall within these definitions.

Under Clause 3, a development is deemed part of a potentially hazardous industry if it

satisfies the definition:

“a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to

operate without employing any measures (including, for example, isolation from existing

or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the

locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose a

significant risk in relation to the locality:

a) to human health, life or property, or;

b) to the biophysical environment;

and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment.”


Page 64


The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) (1997) guideline “Applying SEPP

33” provides a risk screening procedure to facilitate determination of whether a proposed

development is applicable under the SEPP. If, under this screening test SEPP 33 is

triggered, Clause 12 of SEPP 33 requires that any proposal to carry out a potentially

hazardous development must be supported by a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA).

As the Proposal falls within the definition of a “potentially hazardous industry”, a screening

assessment was undertaken, which is outlined in Section 8.7. The assessment found the

Proposal would not trigger the need for a PHA as it would operate below the screening

levels set out in the guidelines.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

The objective of SEPP 55 is to provide for a coordinated state-wide planning approach for

the remediation of contaminated land. SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of

contaminated land with the objective of reducing the risk of harm to human health or other

aspects of the environment.

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the approval authority to have regard to certain matters

before granting approval. These matters include:

Whether the land is contaminated.

Whether the land is, or would be, suitable for the purpose for which development is to

be carried out.

If remediation is required for the land to be suitable for the proposed purpose,

whether the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

SEPP 55 also imposes obligations to carry out any remediation work in accordance with

relevant guidelines, developed under the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1995

(discussed further below) and to notify the relevant council of certain matters in relation to

any remediation work.

Phase 2 contamination investigations have been undertaken for the Site and preferred

options for remediation have been proposed for those sections of the Site with contaminant

concentrations in exceedance of Health Investigation Levels (HILs) appropriate for

commercial and industrial sites. Through the implementation of the recommended remedial

strategies the Site would be made suitable for use as a waste transfer station, in

accordance with Clause 7 of SEPP 55. These are discussed in more detail in Section 8.1

and Appendix E and F.

SEPP 55 identifies works that are Category 1 remediation works, which includes

contaminated soil treatment works classed as designated development under the EP&A Act.

Clause 15, Schedule 3 of the EP&A Regulations prescribes soil remediation works that treat

contaminated soil originating exclusively from the site on which the development is located

and store more than 30,000 m3 of soil.

The Proposal would result in capping and storage on Site of asbestos contaminated soils,

predominantly on the Keith Engineering portion of the Site. It is estimated that the quantity

of soil proposed to be capped on the Keith Engineering portion of the Site may potentially

contain 30,000 m3 of contaminated soils

8; hence, the proposed works are classified as

8 Note: the quantity of contaminated soils to be capped on the Keith Engineering site has not been fully quantified

and may be less than this threshold. The quantity would be confirmed prior to application for an EPL for the Site.




Category 1 remediation works. In accordance with SEPP 55, consent is therefore required

to undertake the remediation works associated with the Proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 – Advertising and Signage

SEPP 64 aims to regulate signage to ensure that it is compatible with the visual character of

an area and provides effective communication in suitable locations. SEPP 64 is applicable

to all signage, except for signage that is classified as ‘exempt development’ under an EPI.

Under the SEPP (Port Botany) signage is classified as ‘exempt development’, if it is not an

advertising structure and it complies with Australian Standard (AS) 1319-1994 Safety signs

for the occupational environment and AS 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of

outdoor lighting.

Signage would be installed at the Proposal site for the purposes of business identification,

provision of occupational health and safety information and directing visitors and waste

vehicles around the site. All signage would be developed in accordance with AS 1319-1994

and AS 4282-1997. Signage associated with the Proposal would include signage on the

terminal building frontage at McPherson Street, including the Veolia symbol and

identification of the terminal building and a traffic sign on Beauchamp Road to direct waste

vehicles to the site. Freestanding signage at the site would not protrude above the dominant

skyline when viewed from the ground level. SEPP 64 is therefore not applicable to the

signage proposed for the Proposal.

LOCAL PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1.3

SEPP (Port Botany), which is applicable to the Banksmeadow TT site and immediately

adjacent areas, overrides the local EPIs that would otherwise be applicable. While not

strictly applicable to development of the Proposal, consideration has nevertheless been

given to the aims and objectives of the Botany Bay LEP to ensure the Banksmeadow TT is

consistent with the desired future character of the area.

Botany Bay Local Environment Plan 2013

The Botany Local Environment Plan 2013 (Botany LEP) came into force on 26 June 2013.

The Banksmeadow TT is located within an area of the Port Botany LGA that is identified in

the DCP that supports the LEP as the ‘Banksmeadow Industrial Precinct’.

The Proposal is consistent with the aims of the Botany LEP, notably the aim to encourage

sustainable economic growth and development. Located within an area identified as an

industrial precinct, the Banksmeadow TT would be compatible with current, future and

surrounding land uses. In addition, the Banksmeadow TT would provide vital waste

management services for the greater Southern Sydney area, facilitating sustainable

economic growth.

The particular aims of the Botany LEP are as follows:

a To recognise the importance of Botany Bay as a gateway to Sydney, given its

proximity to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Port Botany.

b To encourage sustainable economic growth and development.

c To provide direction concerning growth and change in Botany Bay.


Page 66


d To identify and conserve those items and localities that contribute to the local built

form and the environmental and cultural heritage of Botany Bay.

e To protect and enhance the natural and cultural landscapes in Botany Bay.

f To create a highly liveable urban place through the promotion of design excellence in

all elements of the built environment and public domain.

g To protect residential amenity.

The Proposal is deemed to be consistent with the aims of the Botany LEP as:

The proposal would facilitate the movement of waste from the local area by rail,

thereby supporting growth within the Botany Bay area.

The proposal would be developed on land zoned ‘industrial’ under the SEPP (Port

Botany) hence will not impact on areas of the LGA that are designated for residential

development or public open space.

The proposal would be designed to be consistent with the appearance of the

industrial development at McPherson Street and site surrounds.

An assessment of the visual impact of the proposal are discussed in Section 8.14, while a

discussion of surrounding land uses is presented in Section 8.9.

Botany Bay Development Control Plan 2013

As noted in Section 5.1.2, Clause 11 of SEPP (State & Regional Development) excludes the

application of DCPs to development that is SSD. Nevertheless, consideration has been

given to the objectives of the DCP in order to demonstrate consistency of the Proposal with

the overarching aims of Botany City Council for the Site and surrounds. The Botany Bay

Comprehensive DCP 2013 came into force on 17 December 2013. General provisions of

the draft Botany Bay Comprehensive DCP (2013) include:

Parking and access.

Access and mobility.

Signage.

Tree management.

Stormwater management.

Sustainable design.

Landscaping.

Waste minimisation and management.

The provisions of the DCP have been taken into consideration in the design development of

the Proposal, particularly with regard to stormwater management (see Section 8.2), waste

minimisation and management (see Section 8.4) and development of a Landscape Concept

Plan (see Section 8.10 and Appendix Q).

SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPROVAL PATHWAY 5.1.4

The proposed Banksmeadow TT is assessable as SSD under the SEPP (State and

Regional Development). The Proposal should therefore be assessed under Part 4 of the

EP&A Act.




Figure 5-17 shows the planning approval process applicable to development of the

proposal. ‘Public Exhibition of the EIS’ (highlighted in blue) is the point in the assessment

and approval process that the project is currently at.


Page 68


Figure 5-17 Planning approval process




5.2 APPLICABLE NSW ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

The following sections provide a summary of other environmental and planning legislation

that has been considered in the development of the Banksmeadow TT proposal.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS 5.2.1ACT 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) is the key piece of

environmental protection legislation administered by the Environment Protection Authority

(EPA). The principle objectives of the POEO Act are to:

Protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment, while having regard to

the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

Provide increased opportunities for public involvement and participation in

environment protection.

Reduce risks to human health and prevent the degradation of the environment.

Assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Waste Avoidance and Resource

Recovery Act 2001.

Environment Protection Licences

Under the POEO Act, activities that will or are likely to cause pollution are identified as

scheduled activities and require an environmental protection licence (EPL). EPLs are issued

and administered by the EPA.

Table 5-12 Applicable scheduled activities under the POEO Act

Clause Activity Trigger

15 Contaminated soil treatment* Treating (otherwise than by incineration) and

storing more than 30,000 cubic metres of

contaminated soil

41 Waste processing (non-thermal

treatment).

Having on site at any time more than 2,500

tonnes, or 2,500 cubic metres, whichever is the

lesser, of general waste.

Processing more than 30,000 tonnes per year,

of general waste.

42 Waste storage. Receiving more than 30,000 tonnes per year of

waste from offsite.

33 Railway systems activities**. The installation or on site upgrading of track,

including the construction or significant

alteration of any ancillary works.

* Note: the quantity of contaminated soils to be capped on the Keith Engineering site has not been fully quantified and may be less than this threshold. The quantity would be confirmed prior to application for an EPL for the Site. ** Note: The EPL for ‘railway systems activities’ is not required for operation of rolling stock if the activity is for loading of freight into or onto, and unloading of freight from, rolling stock (Sch. 1, Cl33(2)(f)).


Page 70


As noted in Section 3.1.1, Section 89K of the EP&A Act stipulates that the conditions which

form the EPL cannot be inconsistent with the General Terms of Approval and conditions of

consent issued as part of the development consent, at least until the first review of the

licence is undertaken, five years after the issue of the EPL.

Records of waste

Section 88 of the POEO Act requires licensed waste facilities to pay a contribution to the

EPA for each tonne of waste received for disposal at the facility, referred to as the ‘waste

and environment levy’. The purpose of the levy is to reduce the amount of waste being

disposed of and to promote recycling and resource recovery. To achieve this aim, a

deduction to the levy can be claimed for waste that is received at the facility but is

transported to another facility for lawful recycling, processing, recovery or disposal.

Under existing regulations, the Banksmeadow TT site would be exempt from the waste levy

as the purpose of the facility is a transfer facility; however there is a requirement for the

amount of waste transported to and from the Proposal site to be recorded and submitted to

the EPA annually. To accurately track the amount of waste received at the Proposal site and

its destination from the Banksmeadow TT a series of weighbridges would be installed on the

Proposal site. Management of waste at the Proposal site is discussed in more detail in

Section 8.4.

Records must be kept in accordance with the requirements set out in the Protection of the

Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 (discussed below).

It is noted that the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste

Disposal) Act 2013 came into force in late 2013, which amends the POEO Act, and will

ultimately require recycling facilities to pay the waste levy. This change will be enacted

through an amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation

2005, which has yet to be finalised. Weighbridges at the Proposal would be designed,

installed and operated in a manner to meet the new regulatory requirements as they come

into force.

Environment protection offences

The POEO Act establishes a range of pollution offences and penalties that are applicable to

all activities undertaken on a site. Specific pollution offences are created for actions

associated with:

Water pollution.

Air pollution.

Noise pollution.

Land pollution.

Littering and waste.

The POEO Act also establishes a number of regulations that provide further details on the

management of pollution. Those that are applicable to the Banksmeadow TT proposal are

discussed briefly below.

Construction and operation of the Banksmeadow TT proposal would be undertaken in a

manner that achieves compliance with the requirements of the POEO Act and its

regulations. Procedures to prevent pollution during construction would be documented in a

Construction Environmental Management Plan. Operational controls would be detailed in

the Operational Environmental Management Plan.




Pollution Incident Response Management Plans (PIRMP) would be prepared for

construction and operation of the terminal in accordance with the requirements of Part 5.7A

of the POEO Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation

2009. The PIRMPs would document the following:

A description of the likelihood of hazards at the Site.

Pre-emptive actions to be taken to minimise or prevent any risk of harm to human

health or the environment.

An inventory of pollutants kept on the Site.

A description and inventory of safety and environmental equipment stored on site to

control pollution incidents.

Contact details for the EPA, Ministry of Health, Work Cover, NSW Fire and Rescue,

and Botany Bay Council for immediate notification in the event of an incident that

threatens environmental harm.

Details of the mechanisms that would be used for providing early warnings and

regular updates to the owners and occupiers of premises who may be affected by an

incident occurring on the premises.

A detailed map showing the location of the premises, the surrounding area that would

likely be affected by a pollution incident, the location of potential pollutants on the

premises, the location of any stormwater drains on the premises, and the discharge

locations of the stormwater drains to the nearest watercourse or water body.

A description of the actions that would be taken by Veolia immediately after a

pollution incident to reduce or control any pollution.

Details on the nature and objectives of any staff training program on implementing the

PIMRP.

Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010

The Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2002 prescribes

emission concentration limits which apply to industries. Under the regulation, Banksmeadow

TT falls under the ambit of the ‘Group 6 emission concentration limits’, which are the most

stringent limits under the regulation.

Section 8.7 discusses the air quality impacts associated with the proposal and demonstrates

how the terminal facility will readily achieve the limits set out in the regulation.

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

The Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 requires tracking of

certain waste within NSW and between participating states. Each party must be authorised

to store, transport, or receive the specific type of waste. Schedule 1 of the Regulation

identifies the types of waste which apply. In addition, the Regulation has specific reporting

and record-keeping requirements. It is an offence under the POEO Act to wilfully or

negligently dispose of waste in a manner that harms or is likely to harm the environment.

Veolia and its contractors would manage any waste generated from demolition of the

existing buildings on the Banksmeadow TT site and construction of the new facilities, in

accordance with the requirements of the POEO Act.


Page 72


Part 2 of the POEO (Waste) Regulation prescribes the requirements for recording waste at

scheduled waste facilities. Clause 9 of the regulation exempts premises that are used as

transfer facilities from the requirement to pay s88 contributions. Clause 12 of the POEO

(Waste) Regulations requires the occupier of a scheduled waste facility to record the

following information for each delivery of waste material received at the facility:

The amount and type of waste and other material delivered

The date the delivery was made

The registration number of the vehicle making the delivery

The particulars of where on the site the waste and other materials were placed at the

facility

The particulars of any waste received that is exempted under clause 10 from the

calculation of the contribution payable by the facility.

Clause 15 of the regulation requires scheduled premises that receive more than 10,000 tpa

of waste to install a weighbridge to ensure that the quantity of waste being transported to

and from the site is correctly recorded. Several weighbridges would be installed at the

Banksmeadow TT and would be operated and maintained in accordance with the

requirements of the POEO (Waste) Regulation to accurately record waste transported to

and from the Proposal site. Further information on the management of waste at the

Proposal site is provided in Section 8.4.

WASTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY 5.2.2ACT 2001

The importance of responsible resource management, including maximisation of the utility of

resources and associated minimisation of disposal to landfill, is highlighted in the Waste and

Resource Recovery (WARR) Act 2001. The WARR Act is the principal piece of legislation

governing waste and resource management in NSW, and objectives of the Act include:

Encouraging the most efficient use of resources.

Reducing environmental harm.

Ensuring that resources are managed against the waste hierarchy of avoidance,

resource recovery, and then disposal.

Diversion of waste from landfill.

Ensuring industry takes part in reducing and dealing with waste.

Achieving integrated, state-wide waste and resource management planning and

service delivery.

The NSW WARR Strategy 2007 is the principal tool used by the NSW government to

implement the objectives of the WARR Act and is described in detail in Section 5.5, along

with Reducing Waste: Implementation Strategy 2011-2015 and the Draft WARR Strategy

2013. The provisions of the WARR Act are acting as a catalyst for the Proposal need.

CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT ACT 1997 5.2.3

The general object of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) is to

establish a process for investigating and, where appropriate, remediating land that the EPA




considers to be contaminated significantly enough to require regulation. Under the CLM Act,

contamination of land is defined as:

the presence in, on or under the land of a substance at a concentration above the

concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively)

land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health

or any other aspect of the environment (CLM Act, s5).

Land may be considered contaminated even if it became contaminated partly, or entirely, by

the migration of contaminants into, onto or under the land from other land. The Site is within

the declared area of significant contamination known as the ‘Orica Botany’ site, shown in

Figure 5-18. The contamination affecting the declared area constitutes elevated levels of

various organic contaminants, including but not limited to volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons

and semi-volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons (Declaration Number 21074; Area Number

3203, EPA 2005).


Page 74


Figure 5-18 Declared remediation site, Orica




Section 105 of the CLM Act provides for the preparation of guidelines by the EPA to guide

the assessment of site contamination in NSW. In the preparation of this EIS, a detailed site

assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the EPA contaminated land

assessment guidelines, and the findings are presented in Section 8.1. The assessment

concluded that the Site would require remediation prior to operation as a waste transfer

terminal. Strategies to remediate the land to a level that would permit use of the Site for the

purposes of the Proposal are presented in Section 8.1.4. Key remedial works would include

the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs), underground petroleum systems (UPS)

and capping and containment of asbestos contaminated soils.

ROADS ACT 1993 5.2.4

The objects of the Roads Act 1993 are to:

a. Set out the access rights to public roads.

b. Establish procedures for opening and closing public roads.

c. Provide for the classification of roads.

d. Establish the Roads and Maritime Services and confer functions associated with road

works and maintenance to the RMS and other roads authorities.

e. Regulate the carrying out of various activities on public roads.

The Roads Act provides the following definitions applicable to the operation of the Act:

Table 5-13 Definitions under the Roads Act

Defined Term Definition Applicable Roads / Roads

authority

classified road (a) a main road,

(b) a highway,

(c) a freeway,

(d) a controlled access road,

(e) a secondary road,

(f) a tourist road,

(g) a tollway,

(g1) a transitway,

(h) a State work.

Foreshore Road (main road)

Botany Road (main road)

Beauchamp Road (main road)

Roads authority: RMS

public road (a) any road that is opened or

dedicated as a public road,

whether under this or any other

Act or law, and

(b) any road that is declared to

be a public road for the

purposes of this Act.

Perry Street

Roads Authority: Randwick City

Council

McPherson Street

Roads Authority: Botany Bay

Council


Page 76


Defined Term Definition Applicable Roads / Roads

authority

road (a) the airspace above the

surface of the road, and

(b) the soil beneath the surface

of the road, and

(c) any bridge, tunnel,

causeway, road-ferry, ford or

other work or structure forming

part of the road.

Definition applicable to all roads

Section 138 of the Roads Act requires a consent to be obtained from a roads authority

before any works and structures affecting a public road can be undertaken or a connection

to a classified road can proceed. These works and structures comprise:

Erection of a structure or carrying out a work in, on or over a public road.

Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road.

Removing or interfering with a structure, work or tree on a public road.

Pumping water into a public road from any land adjoining the road.

Connecting a road (whether public or private) to a classified road.

Any works at the intersections of the Banksmeadow TT site and public roads would require

the approval of RMS and Botany Council, respectively. Section 89K of the EP&A Act

requires an authorisation granted under s138 of the Roads Act to be substantially consistent

with the conditions of consent granted for a State Significant Development. Consultation

undertaken to date with City of Botany Bay Council, Randwick City Council and RMS

regarding proposed upgrades to the egress points to the Banksmeadow TT site are

summarised in Section 6.1.

A discussion of the traffic impacts associated with the Proposal and mitigation measures

proposed to ameliorate those impacts are presented in Section 8.3. Veolia would enter into

a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS and all works would be managed, designed and

constructed in accordance with the deed.

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 2005 5.2.5

The Road Transport (General) Act 2005 (RTG Act) provides the means to impose vehicle

mass limits to restrict or prohibit certain vehicles using roads, bridges or causeways with

respect to classified roads, as defined by the Road Act (Section 28). Section 28 enables

councils and RMS to restrict vehicles with a laden mass exceeding a specified maximum

mass from using certain roads. Under the RTG Act, an individual who breaches the load

limit restrictions enacted under section 28 is guilty of an offence.

The routes approved for restricted access vehicles (RAVs) to access the proposed

Banksmeadow TT site are shown in Figure 5-19. While the putrescible waste trucks

accessing the Site are not classified as RAVs as their maximum length is 12 metres and

gross vehicle mass is 22.5 tonnes, trucks accessing the sites would preferentially use routes

approved for use by RAVs, unless the origin is within the local area. Further detail of

transport routes is provided in Section 8.3.




Figure 5-19 Approved Restricted Access Vehicle routes (August 2012)


Page 78





WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2000 5.2.6

The Water Management Act 2000 (WMA) aims to facilitate the sustainable and efficient use

of water in such a way that benefits the environment and communities. The WMA provides

for the preparation of water management plans that outline arrangements for water sharing,

water source protection and drainage management. The Proposal site is located within the

area covered by the 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan (NOW, 2010), the key aims of which are

to:

Provide a secure supply of water to meet the medium-term needs of Sydney, while

planning for long-term goals.

Protect the health of Sydney’s rivers.

Ensure water supplies are adequate throughout drought.

The Banksmeadow TT proposal has been designed to have a minimal impact on the quality

and quantity of water discharged from the site, and to minimise the demand for potable

water at the site through the capture and reuse of rain water. Further details on proposed

water management at the site are provided in Section 0.

Under the WMA approval is required to undertake:

Controlled activities, including dredging and reclamation works and any works that

affect the quantity or flow of water in a water source.

Aquifer interference activities, including any activity involving the penetration of an

aquifer, interference with water in an aquifer and obstruction of water within an

aquifer.

The Proposal will not trigger the need for a controlled activities approval as it will not involve

any works in or near a watercourse.

The WMA also provides for the protection and sharing of groundwater through the

development and implementation of water sharing plans. The Proposal is subject to the

Water Sharing Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Region Groundwater Sources 2011, which

commenced July 2011. The Proposal site lies within the extent of the Botany Sands

Groundwater Source, which is highly vulnerable to contamination due to the permeability of

the sands and the generally shallow water table.

Under section 91F of the WMA it is an offence to carry out an activity that would interfere

with water within an aquifer, causing removal of water from the source or the movement of

water from one part of an aquifer to another without an aquifer interference approval. Works

for construction of the Proposal, including excavations for foundations and removal of an

existing USTs and UPSs, are likely to interfere with the aquifer and an aquifer interference

approval would be required under the WMA.

Under section 60D of the WMA it is an offence to take water from a water source by means

other than by a water supply work without a water licence. A water licence is required

whether water is taken for consumptive use or whether it is taken incidentally by the aquifer

interference activity. An aquifer interference approval and a water access licence would be

obtained prior to commencement of construction works.


Page 80


NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT 1993 5.2.7

The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 aims to reduce the negative impact of weeds on the

economy, community and the environment by providing for the effective management and

monitoring of widespread weeds. The objective of the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 is to reduce

the impact of weeds and prevent the establishment of further weed populations. To achieve

this, the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 imposes obligations on occupiers of land to control any

noxious weeds that have been declared within their area.

Four species of noxious weeds, listed in the control area of the Council of the City of Botany

Bay, have been recorded on the proposed Banksmeadow TT site. Of these, Bitou Bush

(Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. Rotundata) is identified as a notifiable weed, under

Section 8(3) of the Noxious Weeds Act, and would require complete eradication from the

site. A discussion of weed species present on the proposed Banksmeadow TT site and

management strategies for the control of weeds are provided in Section 8.10.

THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT 1995 5.2.8

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) is administered by the OEH and

provides for the protection of threatened species, populations, ecological communities and

their habitat, and critical habitat within NSW. The primary aims of the TSC Act are to protect,

conserve, and, where applicable, manage certain processes that threaten the survival or

evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities.

Schedules 1, 1A and 2 of the Act list threatened species, populations and ecological

communities that are classified as ‘endangered’, ‘critically endangered’ or ‘vulnerable’.

An assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity values, including threatened species and

endangered ecological communities, as a result of the proposal is contained in Section 8.9.

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994 5.2.9

The Fisheries Management Act 1994 aims to conserve biological diversity, and prevent the

extinction of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine

vegetation. It aims to ensure that any potential impacts on threatened species and aquatic

habitats are properly addressed during planning and assessment procedures.

Schedules 4, 4A and 5 list threatened species, populations and ecological communities and

key threatening processes that are classified as ‘endangered’, ‘critically endangered’ or

‘vulnerable’.

The Banksmeadow TT site does not contain any water courses or water bodies. However,

waste flows from the ultimately drains to Penhryn Estuary, which provides habitat for

juvenile fish within the seagrass beds of the outer estuary (Sydney Ports Corporation,

2007).

The Banksmeadow TT design has incorporated measures to minimise changes to the

quantity and quality of stormwater leaving the site. Details on the proposed stormwater

management at the site and impact on watercourses are discussed in Section 0.




NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 5.2.10

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NP&W Act) aims to conserve and protect habitat,

ecosystems, landforms and biological diversity by applying the principles of ecologically

sustainable development (NP&W Act, s2A). Under the NP&W Act it is an offence to cause

harm to protected fauna species or to pick protected native vegetation without a licence. A

general license may be issued by the Director-General of the Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH) to harm any protected fauna (other than a threatened species, population or

ecological community) in the course of carrying out specified development or specified

activities.

No harm is expected to be done to any protected fauna and native flora species identified

on the site are not classified as protected under the NP&A W Act; hence a licence under the

NP&W Act is not required for the Proposal. Details of the flora and fauna of the

Banksmeadow TT site are provided in Section 0.

The NP&W Act also provides for the conservation of objects, places or features of cultural

value within the landscape, including items and places of significance to Aboriginal people

and places of historic and social significance to the people of NSW. The NP&W Act

establishes the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), containing

information and reports regarding Aboriginal objects and other objects, places and features

of significance to Aboriginal People. A search of the AHIMS found no sites or objects of

Aboriginal significance within close proximity of the site.

The site has been previously disturbed and it is unlikely that any items of Aboriginal

significance would be uncovered during construction or operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

In the event where they are discovered, mitigation measures that would be implemented

have been outlined within Section 8.11.

HERITAGE ACT 1977 5.2.11

The objectives of the Heritage Act 1977 are to promote understanding and conservation of

items of heritage significance. Items of heritage significance include places, buildings,

works, relics, moveable objects, and precincts, of state or local heritage significance. Part 2

of the Heritage Act provides for the constitution of the Heritage Council of NSW, which is

responsible for making recommendations to the Minister relating to the conservation of

State heritage. The Heritage Council maintains the State Heritage Inventory as a database

that lists items of State and local Heritage significance. No items are listed on the State

Heritage within the vicinity of the Proposal site, or the wider suburbs of Banksmeadow or

Matraville.

Two heritage items listed under the SEPP (Port Botany) - the main Orica and administration

building, and a mature Ficus tree - are located within close proximity of the TT site. The

Proposal would not impact the heritage significance of these items; hence approval under

the Heritage Act or the SEPP (Port Botany) would not be triggered.

Any likely impacts on any items of heritage significance associated with the Banksmeadow

TT proposal have been assessed, and are outlined within Section 8.12.


Page 82


5.3 APPLICABLE COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING LEGISLATION

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY 5.3.1CONSERVATION ACT 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the

primary piece of environmental legislation at the federal level. The EPBC Act relevantly

provides a legal framework to assess proposed actions that will have, or are likely to have, a

significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (NES), Commonwealth

land or are proposed to be undertaken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth Agency.

The EPBC Act requires that actions which will have, or are likely to have, a significant

impact on such matters require the approval from the Commonwealth Minister for

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the Minister). A search of

the EPBC Protected Matters Search tool was undertaken on 12 August 2013 for the site and

a 1 km buffer.

Table 5-14 Site and buffer relevance to matters of national environmental significance

Matter of NES Assessment

Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR) Towra Point Nature Reserve.

Towra Point Nature Reserve is located

approximately 7 km from the Proposal site, on the

northern side of the Kurnell Peninsula, forming

the southern and eastern shores of Botany Bay.

The Proposal is not predicted to have an impact

on the hydrology or ecology of the area and no

impacts on Towra Point Nature reserve are

predicted.

World Heritage Properties No World Heritage Properties are located within

the vicinity of the Proposal site.

National Heritage Places No National Heritage Places are located within

the vicinity of the Proposal site.

Commonwealth Marine Areas No Commonwealth Marine Areas are located

within the vicinity of the Proposal site.




Matter of NES Assessment

Listed Ecological Communities

Listed Threatened Species

Listed Migratory Species

The Banksmeadow area is characteristically

industrial with very little undeveloped land. The

Proposal site is mostly covered by industrial

facilities; including large sheds and a railway

siding and only limited landscaped vegetation

exists on the site. The extensively modified

nature of the site and its surrounds means that

the potential for threatened or migratory flora and

fauna occurring at the site, or utilising it as habitat

is considered low.

No impacts on EPBC listed species are predicted

as a consequence of the Proposal. A description

of the biodiversity values of the site and potential

impacts are discussed in Section 8.10.

Commonwealth Land The Australian Postal Commission is located

within the 1 km buffer of the Proposal site. No

impacts on this land are predicted as a result of

the Proposal.

Impacts on matters of NES are not predicted as part of the Proposal and a referral has not

been made to Commonwealth Department for the Environment for the Proposal.

AIRPORTS ACT 1996 5.3.2

The Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport protects the airspace

around leased Federal airports, including Sydney Airport, under Part 12 of the Airports Act

1996 (Airports Act) and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996.

The Airports Act defines ‘protected airspace’ in reference to international standards and

establishes two levels of height restrictions within the vicinity of a Commonwealth airport:

Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS): generally the lowest surface and is designed to

provide protection for aircraft flying into or out of the airport when the pilot is flying by

sight

Procedures for Air Navigational Services—Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surface:

generally above the OLS and is designed to safeguard an aircraft from collision with

obstacles when the aircraft's flight may be guided solely by instruments, in conditions

of poor visibility.

Persons wishing to undertake activities that may result in an intrusion of protected airspace

are required to apply to Sydney Airport Company Ltd. for approval. The Banksmeadow TT

site is within the vicinity of Sydney Airport; however no height limits are prescribed for the

site under the SEPP (Port Botany) and the site is outside both the PANS-OPS and OLS

height restrictions hence the consent of Sydney Airport would not be required for

construction or operation of the Proposal.


Page 84


5.4 SUMMARY OF LICENSING AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Table 5-15 provides a summary of the licenses and permits that would be required, in

addition to development approval, for the Proposal.

Table 5-15 Licensing and permitting requirements

Legislation Approval / permit trigger Approval required Approval body

POEO Act Waste processing (non-

thermal treatment),

Waste storage and

Railway systems

activities.

Environmental Protection

Licence.

EPA

Roads Act Works on a public road –

Beauchamp Road.

Section 138 Roads Activity

N.B. to be applied consistently

with planning consent.

RMS

Works on a public road –

McPherson Street.

Botany Bay Council

WMA Water access licence. Section 60D – incidental

‘taking’ of water.

NOW

Aquifer interference

approval.

Section 91F aquifer

interference activity.




5.5 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY 5.5.1

The Proposal is consistent with NSW and federal government strategies and plans,

including those which are outlined below.

Waste and Resource Recovery Act 2001

The importance of responsible resource management, including maximisation of the utility of

resources and associated minimisation of disposal to landfill, is highlighted in the Waste and

Resource Recovery Act 2001 (WARR Act). The objectives of the WARR Act, New South

Wales’ principal piece of legislation governing waste and resource management, include:

Encouraging the most efficient use of resources

Reducing environmental harm

Ensuring that resources are managed against the waste hierarchy of avoidance,

resource recovery then disposal

Diversion of waste from landfill

Ensuring industry takes part in reducing and dealing with waste

Achieving integrated, state-wide waste and resource management planning and

service delivery.

The Banksmeadow TT would help to achieve the objectives of the WARR Act by providing a

facility through which local governments and C&I operators can choose to send putrescible

waste to either the Woodlawn MBT facility at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site for recovery of

recyclables and organics, or to the Woodlawn Bioreactor, a highly-engineered landfill facility

which uses methane captured from the waste decomposition for renewable electricity

generation. The Banksmeadow TT would also provide a necessary piece of infrastructure

for C&I operators in the southern Sydney region to divert non-putrescible waste to recovery

facilities, such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, for recovery of recyclable

materials.

The Banksmeadow TT would be an industry-led facility which would form a vital component

of the integrated infrastructure required to manage Sydney’s waste into the future. Through

the provision of choice and competition for management of residual waste, the

Banksmeadow TT would play an important role in encouraging the most efficient use of

resources, diverting waste from landfill, and reducing environmental harm.

WARR Strategy 2007

The principal tool which the WARR Act uses for achievement of the objectives of the Act is a

state-wide waste strategy. The first strategy under the Act was released in 2003, and

updated in 2007. The WARR Strategy names four key result areas to be achieved:

1. Preventing and avoiding waste

2. Increasing recovery and use of secondary materials

3. Reducing toxicity in products and materials

4. Reducing litter and illegal dumping.


Page 86


Resource recovery targets are set under the WARR Strategy in order to drive diversion of

resources from landfill. The targets, to be achieved by 2014, are:

66% diversion from landfill of the municipal waste stream

63% diversion from landfill of the commercial and industrial waste stream

65% diversion from landfill of the construction and demolition waste stream.

In regards to the C&I waste stream, the WARR Strategy comments:

“The commercial and industrial waste stream continues to be not only the biggest waste

stream in Sydney but also the hardest stream to tackle as it has so many players of different

sizes and across different sectors, with diverse and ad hoc recycling systems.”

The WARR Strategy makes a commitment to Environmentally Sustainable Development

(ESD) principles, including the following:

Inter-generational equity – the present generation should ensure that the health,

diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the

benefit of future generations.

Shared responsibility – industry should share (with the community) the responsibility

for reducing and dealing with waste.

System integration – waste and resource management planning, programs and

service delivery need to be integrated on a State-wide basis.

The Banksmeadow TT would provide a necessary component of the resource recovery

infrastructure required to achieve key result area No. 2 (“Increasing recovery and use of

secondary materials”) and the municipal diversion target through providing local

governments with access to the Woodlawn MBT facility. The Banksmeadow TT would also

act to achieve key result area No. 4 (“Reducing litter and illegal dumping”) by providing

market competition for management of putrescible commercial and industrial waste.

Competition would potentially lower waste management costs for C&I operators, helping to

address illegal dumping issues.

As commented above, the C&I waste stream is of high strategic importance due to the large

volumes generated in the Sydney area, and the difficulties associated with addressing

recovery of resources from this waste stream. The Banksmeadow TT, in conjunction with

the Camellia Recycling Centre, would play an important role in the achievement of the C&I

target in the Sydney area, as well as key result area No. 2, by providing C&I operators an

alternative to landfill for their residual waste stream.

By acting to implement the necessary infrastructure and systems for resource recovery in

the Sydney region, which are needed now and into the future, this proposal addresses the

ESD principle of inter-generational equity. Likewise, the ESD principles of shared

responsibility and system integration are met under this proposal as the Banksmeadow TT

would be an industry-led project, forming a vital link in the network of waste infrastructure

that services the Sydney region.

Reducing Waste: Implementation Strategy 2011-2015

A review of the WARR Strategy 2007 was conducted in 2010, entitled Review of Waste

Strategy and Policy in New South Wales (“the Richmond Review”). One recommendation

was to develop an implementation plan for the WARR Strategy to assist in the delivery of

the targets contained in the Strategy. The Reducing Waste: Implementation Strategy 2011-

2015 was published in 2011 and contains five focus areas for NSW Government action.




Of relevance to this proposal are the following focus areas:

Focus area 2: Making it easier for businesses to separate and recover their waste

This focus area includes encouraging businesses to use AWT facilities for the

treatment of their waste. The proposal would provide a necessary component of

infrastructure which would enable recovery of recyclable materials from C&I waste.

Focus area 4: Facilitating investment in waste infrastructure

As noted in the Richmond Review, “One of the biggest challenges in waste

management in NSW is securing sufficient investment in waste and resource

recovery infrastructure to ensure there is sufficient capacity for waste sorting and

processing to achieve the targets. This is critical to both the municipal and C&I waste

sectors.” (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 2010, p. 48)

The proposal would directly act to address this significant challenge by providing

additional resource recovery infrastructure in the Sydney region to service both the

municipal and C&I waste sectors.

Focus area 5: Reducing litter and combating illegal dumping

As noted in the Implementation Strategy, the incidence of illegal dumping “may start

to increase as the waste and environment levy increases” (Department of

Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 2011a, p. 13). Through the provision

of competition in the management of putrescible C&I waste, the proposal could assist

to reduce the impact of the levy rise and hence potentially reduce illegal dumping

incidence.

Draft WARR Strategy 2013

The WARR Strategy is required to be updated every 5 years under the WARR Act, and in

accordance with this requirement, the Draft NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Strategy 2013-21 (Draft WARR Strategy) was released in October 2013, with public

consultation to close in December 2013. The key result areas in the Draft WARR Strategy

are very similar to those laid out in the 2007 WARR Strategy and are as follows:

1 Avoid and reduce waste generation

2 Increase recycling

3 Divert more waste from landfill

4 Manage problem wastes better

5 Reduce litter

6 Reduce illegal dumping.

The Draft WARR Strategy has named the following targets, to be achieved by 2021–22:

70% recycling rate for municipal solid waste

70% recycling rate for commercial and industrial waste

75% diversion of waste from landfill.

Similar to the WARR Strategy 2007 and the Implementation Strategy, the Banksmeadow TT

would contribute to the key result areas 2, 3 and 6 through the provision of a key piece of

infrastructure which would assist local government and C&I operators to increase resource


Page 88


recovery, and thereby conserve landfill space. Through the provision of competition in the

management of putrescible C&I waste, the Banksmeadow TT could assist to reduce the

impact of the levy rise and hence potentially reduce illegal dumping incidence.

National Waste Policy: less waste, more resources

The National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources was released in November 2009

and outlines the federal government’s direction for waste management in Australia to 2020.

The outcomes intended to be achieved under the Policy include the following:

Waste streams are routinely managed as a resource to achieve better environmental,

social and economic outcomes

Australia has increased the amount of products, goods and materials that can be

readily and safely used for other purposes at end of life

Opportunities to safely manage, reduce and recycle waste are available to all

Australians.

The Banksmeadow TT would help to achieve these outcomes by providing a vital piece of

resource recovery infrastructure for the Sydney region, whereby valuable material can be

recovered from material that would otherwise be disposed to landfill.

NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

Released in December 2012, the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan provides a

framework for development of NSW’s transport system for the following twenty years. While

the Master Plan does not consider the transport of waste, this activity is a significant

component of transport requirements in the Sydney Metropolitan Area (SMA).

In 2008–09, the tonnage of waste generated9 in the SMA was around 11 megatonnes (Mt)

(Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 2011b). Waste requires

transport from the waste generation source to its final destination, often via a transfer

station. It is estimated that, due to the number of times a tonne of waste is transported

between the source of generation and its final destination, one tonne of generated waste

equates to approximately two tonnes of freight. For perspective, the freight required for

waste generated within the SMA is approximately equivalent to the current Port Botany

container activities (Transport for NSW, 2012a).

In addition, waste generation in NSW is growing. Between 2002–03 and 2008–09, waste

generation grew 70%; from just over 12 Mt to nearly 21 Mt (Hyder 2012). This continual

growth will drastically impact the number of waste transport vehicles on Sydney roads,

which has strategic implications for the NSW economy. As the Master Plan states:

“Freight logistics is an enabler of almost all economic activity in NSW. With the NSW

freight task set to almost double by 2031, the efficient performance of the NSW freight

network will have a direct bearing on the transport and other costs we pay for goods

and raw products, and on the competitiveness and productivity of NSW.” (Transport

for NSW 2012b, p. 261)

The Banksmeadow TT would play a part in reducing freight on Sydney roads through the

use of the existing rail network to transfer putrescible waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site. This would result in the removal of heavy vehicles from the Sydney road network that

9 Including municipal, C&I and construction and demolition waste




would otherwise be required to transfer this waste to a Sydney landfill. When the

Banksmeadow TT is operating at capacity, this would equate to around 30,000 heavy

vehicle movements per year.

NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One

The NSW Government has identified the importance of improving the performance of the

NSW rail network to increase efficiency in moving commodities. To address this objective,

the NSW Government has issued a number of policy documents to support increasing rail

movements in transporting freight to ease road congestion.

NSW 2021 A Plan to Make NSW Number One (NSW 2021) continues the theme of

increasing rail share in moving freight. The objective to ‘Invest in Critical Infrastructure’

(Goal 19) includes the sub-objective “Enhance rail freight movement by doubling the

proportion of container freight movement by rail through NSW ports by 2020”. Development

of the Banksmeadow TT project is consistent with this goal as it will promote the transport of

waste to landfill by rail, reducing heavy vehicle movements on the road.

Goal 22 is to ‘Protect our Natural Environment’, which includes the protection of local

environments from pollution by targeting illegal dumping. The Banksmeadow TT would

potentially lower putrescible C&I waste treatment costs by stimulating competition and

choice in the market for treatment of putrescible C&I waste. Lowering of waste management

costs could potentially have a positive impact by reducing the incidence of illegal dumping.

Goal 23 of NSW 2021 is to ‘increase opportunities for people to look after their own

neighbourhoods and environments’. A target of this goal is to increase recycling rates and to

turn waste into a valuable resource. The Banksmeadow TT would enable the sorting and

transfer of non-putrescible C&I waste to recovery facilities such as the proposed Camellia

Recycling Centre. This would support the NSW Government’s target to increase recovery

rates for C&I waste and lead to better outcomes for the environment.

Regional Action Plan – Eastern Sydney and Inner West

Regional Action Plans have been developed under the umbrella of NSW 2021 in order to

identify the immediate actions the NSW Government will take to improve outcomes in each

region. The Banksmeadow TT site is located within the area covered by the Eastern Sydney

and Inner West Regional Action Plan.

The Eastern Sydney and Inner West Regional Action Plan identifies development of a

regional waste strategy as a priority for the area. The SSROC councils’ have commenced

development of an overarching waste strategy, the objective of which is to identify and

describe a range of strategic options available to the regional councils, and to provide

commentary on current trends, technologies and best practices. It is understood that the

NSW EPA has requested that the SSROC councils’ overarching waste management

strategy include the Woodlawn MBT. Access to AWT for recovery of resources from the

residual waste stream is a key component of several SSROC councils’ waste management

strategy, and central to achieving waste management targets outlined in the WARR

Strategy.

Metropolitan Plan for Sydney to 2036

The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney to 2036 (Metropolitan Plan) (2010) seeks to integrate land

use and transport planning to promote the efficient use of public funds. The Metropolitan

Plan sets the boundaries for future urban development and identifies the strategic transport


Page 90


corridors and Major Centres best placed to focus sustainable future commercial and

residential growth.

The Metropolitan Strategy identified ten sub-regions, for which Draft Sub-regional Strategies

have been prepared. The Banksmeadow TT site is located within the Eastern Subregion

and within the Port Botany and Environs Precinct of the subregion. The Metropolitan

Strategy notes:

‘specialised Centres of Port Botany and environs, and Sydney Airport and

environs are not appropriate locations for new dwellings’ (pp. 65).

The Draft Sub-regional Strategy – Eastern Subregion was developed in 2007 to act as a

framework for local councils in preparation of local environment plans and to provide

guidance on the Metropolitan Strategy that will be applied at local and subregional levels.

An environmental action identified within the draft sub-regional strategy is:

Councils should ensure that development does not encroach on waste

management facilities, and land use conflicts are minimised through

appropriate planning controls (Eastern Subregion Action E3.4.1).

The Banksmeadow TT site is located on land zoned IN1 – General Industrial under the

SEPP (Port Botany) and is therefore consistent with the landuse planning intent of the

SEPP.

Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2031

The Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney (Draft Metropolitan Strategy) was placed on

public exhibition in March 2013. The objective of the Draft Metropolitan Strategy is to set the

framework for Sydney’s growth to 2031 and to support the key goals, targets and actions

contained in NSW 2021.

The Draft Metropolitan Strategy identified six sub-regions for which the key activities and

deliverables of interest have been identified. The Banksmeadow TT site is located within the

‘Central’ sub-region and within the ‘Port Botany (& environs) Specialised Precinct’ within the

Central sub-region. The priorities identified for the Port Botany (& environs) Specialised

Precinct are to:

Develop and support as Australia’s premier international trade gateway and land/sea

freight access and associated industrial areas

Improve rail freight handling capacity and manage the impacts of freight growth on

the transport system

Provide capacity for at least 4,000 additional jobs in 2031.

The Banksmeadow TT project would facilitate the transport of waste from the Sydney region

by train, increasing the rail freight handling capacity and reducing the number of heavy

vehicles on the road within the Central Sub-region. Operation of the TT would provide for

approximately 25 full-time positions during operations and approximately 100 during

construction of the terminal, thereby assisting in achieving the priorities identified for the

area in the Draft Metropolitan Strategy.




6 CONSULTATION

6.1 STATUTORY CONSULTATION

The DGRs specified requirements around consultation during the development of the EIS.

During the preparation of the EIS, Veolia has consulted with the relevant local, State and

Commonwealth Government authorities, service providers, community groups and affected

landowners, as was recommended in the DGRs. The following sections detail the

consultation that has been undertaken to date.

PLANNING FOCUS MEETING 6.1.1

A planning focus meeting was held at the Banksmeadow TT site on 9 April 2013 to provide

a forum for statutory agencies to consider the scope and level of assessment of key issues.

The agencies that attended this meeting included:

Sydney Ports.

EPA.

Botany Bay City Council.


Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

ARTC.

Key issues raised during the Planning Focus meeting were:

Waste management and reduction: Addressing how the Proposal would achieve

the resource recovery targets under the WARR and document how the proposal

would work with the Woodlawn MBT.

Traffic, transport and access: Consideration of existing traffic on the surrounding

road network, consideration of existing and future traffic from port related

development and local development proposals. Identification of road upgrade

requirements and mechanisms for funding.

Rail access: Details of connection and access requirements to the Botany Good line.

Noise: Noise impacts of the proposal on residential and adjacent industrial receivers.

Air quality and odour: Odour impacts on surrounding area and measures to

mitigate.

Stormwater and flooding: Consideration of existing flood studies undertaken by

Botany City Council and impacts of the development on flooding. Control of

stormwater leaving site and prevention of stormwater from entering ARTC land.

Contamination: Assessment of site contamination on Asciano land and identification

of any USTs present on site. Development of remedial and management strategies.

Hazards and risk: Determine hazardous materials with existing structures and

identification of hazardous substances to be used or transported to site.

These key issues were captured within the DGRs and have been addressed within the EIS

and appendices.


Page 92


COUNCIL AND AGENCY CONSULTATION 6.1.2

Botany Bay City Council

A representative from Botany Bay City Council attended the Planning Focus Meeting, held

on site on 9 April 2013.

A further meeting was held in Botany Bay City Council’s offices on 19 September 2013.

During this meeting, members of Veolia’s design and impact assessment team presented

further details of the Proposal and the findings of preliminary investigations. Key issues

raised by Botany Bay Council during this meeting were:

Traffic and transport: consideration of development proposals within the Botany Bay

LGA and assessment of key intersections, including Beauchamp Road and Perry

Street, Beauchamp Road and Denison Street; and Beauchamp Road and Botany

Road/ Foreshore Drive.

Water management: consideration of stormwater management in accordance with

the DCP controls and consideration of wastewater management. Liaison with

Council’s stormwater and flooding engineers regarding the Springvale Drain flood

study and impacts of the Proposal on flood levels.

Contamination: preparation of a detailed site investigation and identification of

remedial strategies.

Noise: consideration of noise impacts on residential receivers along Denison Street

and Beauchamp Road.

Hazards and risk: consideration of SEPP 33 and chemical and hazardous goods

storage requirements on site. Liaison with Orica and the Botany Industrial Precinct

regarding the revised Land Use Risk Assessment completed for the site.

Sydney Airport: Noted requirement to refer development to Sydney Airport

Corporation Ltd. (SACL) for development with building heights over 15 m within the

restricted air space.

Port Botany: Noted that Port Botany has been leased post-issuing of the DGRs

hence there is now a need to consult with both Sydney Ports and NSW Ports.

Development Control Plans: Noted that the Draft DCP is anticipated to come into

force in November 2013, pending Council endorsement. Requested consideration to

both the current and Draft DCP requirements.

A meeting was subsequently held on site with Botany Bay Council’s stormwater engineer

and strategic planners to discuss flooding and stormwater implications of the Proposal on 9

October 2013.

Randwick City Council

A representative of Randwick City Council attended the Planning Focus Meeting held on 9

April 2013.

A further meeting was held at Randwick City Council Offices on 9 October 2013, where the

Veolia design and impact assessment team presented further details of the Proposal and

the preliminary impact assessment findings. The key issues raised by Randwick City

Council at this meeting were:




Traffic: Noted that the prevention of the use of Perry Street by trucks accessing the

Proposal would be a key concern for residents, particularly with regard to noise, and

hard engineering solutions to should be investigated to prevent its inappropriate use.

Amenities for truck drivers: Noted that amenities should be provided on the

Proposal site for truck drivers to minimise truck parking in residential streets.

Air quality and odour: Noted that management of odour and dust emissions from

the site is likely to be a key area of concern to residents.

Noise: Noted that the highest number of noise complaints received by Randwick City

Council is between 10 PM and 7 AM, during which time the train would be loaded at

the Proposal site. Requested that consideration be given to how rail shunting noises

and container handling noise can be minimised

Light spill: Noted that light spill from industries and businesses around the Port is

becoming an issue for local residents and the potential for lightspill should be

addressed in the EIS.

Australian Rail and Track Corporation

Representatives from the Australian Rail and Track Corporation (ARTC) were in attendance

at the Planning Focus Meeting, held on 9 April 2013. At this meeting the key issues raised

were:

Stormwater management: ARTC requested that no stormwater from the Site should

be allowed to enter the Botany Line rail corridor.

Train paths: ARTC requested that Veolia’s train operator to negotiate adequate train

paths for the Proposal and manage shunting within the sidings.

In addition, a meeting was held on 5 April 2013 between Veolia, ARTC and Pacific National,

as Veolia’s proposed rail operator for the Banksmeadow TT. Pacific National has been in

continuing discussions with ARTC regarding the Proposal and the access requirements

from, the site to the main freight line.

Transport for NSW

A meeting was held on Thursday, 14 November 2013 at Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

Offices, where Veolia presented details of the Proposal and preliminary impact assessment

findings. Representatives from Pacific National, as Veolia’s proposed rail operator for the

Proposal, and from Sydney Ports were also present. The key issues raised by TfNSW in this

meeting were:

Rail operations: TfNSW requested that details regarding train access in and out of

the site be detailed within the EIS, including the arrival and departure time, the

proposed length of trains and number of wagons.

Traffic interactions with Port Botany traffic: TfNSW noted that the Port Botany

third terminal will soon become operational and that the peak operating capacity of

Port Botany, at 7 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) throughput, would be

reached in 2030. TfNSW requested details within the EIS on how traffic associated

with the Proposal would interact with traffic associated with the operation of Port

Botany.

Port Botany Noise working group: A working group has been established by the

EPA in response to complaints from residents’ regarding noise from Port Botany

operations. This group will ultimately produce a Noise Abatement Strategy for the


Page 94


Port Botany Precinct to address potential noise implications associated with forecast

increases in container throughput. As a future operator within the vicinity of the Port

Botany Precinct, Veolia would seek to cooperate with the EPA through the

development of the Noise Abatement Strategy.

Environment Protection Authority

Representatives from the EPA attended the Planning Focus Meeting held on 9 April 2013.

The key issues raised at this time are reflected in the response to request for DGRs, which

is included in Appendix A.

A meeting was held at the EPA Office on Thursday, 7 November 2013, where Veolia

presented further details of the Proposal and the preliminary impact assessment findings.

The key issues raised by the EPA at this meeting and in addition to those discussed at the

Planning Focus Meeting, were:

Leachate management: The EIS should describe how leachate would be managed

on site and measures to minimise its generation.

Weighbridges: EPA noted that new standards will soon be in place for weighbridges

and that those installed at the facility would need to ensure compliance with these

standards.

Diesel storage: Diesel stored on site must be within an enclosed, bunded area with

an internally sloping floor.

Stormwater flows: EPA noted that stormwater management systems on licensed

premises should not be linked to other licensed premises, such as the adjacent

Botany Building Recyclers.

It was also noted that the EPA has recently established the Port Botany Noise Working

Group, which comprises stakeholders within the Port Botany precinct, including:

Port operators and industrial premises

Randwick and Botany Councils

Road and rail operators and network managers

The group was established in 2013 to develop a Noise Abatement Strategy to address the

increase in the number of complaints received by the EPA regarding night time noise in the

precinct. Veolia will continue to liaise with the EPA and will provide support in the

development of a Noise Abatement Strategy and undertake noise monitoring at the

Proposal site to help inform the strategy.

NSW Office of Water

The NSW Office of Water (NOW) was contacted by email and phone on 7 November 2013

to discuss the Proposal. During the communications the Proposal was described and the

potential need for a water access licence and aquifer interference approval discussed.

No additional issues were raised by NOW during these communications.

Roads and Maritime Services

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) were invited to attend the Planning Focus

meeting; however, no representatives were available to attend. In response to the request

for DGRs, the key issues raised by the RMS to be addressed in the EIS included:




Traffic movements: daily and peak traffic movements and their impact on nearby

intersections should be assessed.

Access: details of proposed accesses and parking provisions should be discussed.

Service vehicle movements: Details of service vehicle movements and likely arrival

and departure times.

Agreements: Details of the likely legal instruments proposed to address the provision

of infrastructure for the Proposal.

The traffic modelling files developed for the Proposal have been provided to RMS for their

review and RMS have indicated their acceptance of the outcomes of the modelling

presented in this EIS and the Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment.

NSW Ports

The newly formed NSW Ports were contacted on 1 October 2013 to inform the authority of

the proposal and enquire whether there were any additional issues for consideration within

the EIS. The authority confirmed that the key issues were the same as iterated in the DGRs,

being consideration of traffic impacts, particularly on key port access roads.

6.2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

During the development of the EIS, consultation was primarily undertaken to facilitate

engagement between the project team and key community stakeholders. This engagement

served a dual purpose:

To identify key community issues for consideration in the EIS and associated

technical studies.

To create broad awareness of the proposal.

The community consultation program commenced in February 2013 to coincide with the

request for DGRs for the Proposal lodged with P&I. This program has included:

A dedicated webpage (http://www.veoliaes.com.au/community-and-

environment/banksmeadow-transfer-terminal) offering general information about the

Proposal, together with a project flyer, timeline and factsheet. A response to

frequently asked questions (FAQ) was uploaded to provide responses to general

questions.

A 1800 community information line (1800 252 040) and project email address

([email protected]) to provide a central point of contact for community

enquiries. These contact points have been promoted to the community via the

website, in written correspondence and at community presentations.

A letterbox drop on 17 May 2013, delivering information to 1800 residences in nearby

residential areas, including Hillsdale and Matraville. Figure 6-20 shows a map of the

distribution area.

Two project updates provided via post or email to stakeholders, including

neighbouring properties, residential areas and special interest groups, at project

milestones. The first was distributed in February 2013 when the DGRs for the

Proposal were requested from P&I. This correspondence included a project overview

and fact sheet. A second was distributed in mid May 2013 to inform stakeholders that


Page 96


the DGRs had been issued and also to provide information about technical

investigations, including noise logging.

Additional correspondence was distributed via email and or post to community groups

in mid-October 2013 to coincide with the signing of the agreement between Veolia

and the eight SSROC Councils for the long-term treatment of household waste from

across their local government areas. This correspondence included an update on the

status of this EIS to the P&I as well as anticipated timeframes for its public exhibition.

Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the project update sent to community groups; and

Several media releases from Veolia and issued to metropolitan and local newspapers

and waste industry publications.

To date there have been nine enquiries received through the 1800 number and the

Proposal’s information email address. Enquiries have largely been requests for

further information on the Proposal.

Consultation has been undertaken with key community stakeholders including a range of

community groups, individuals and organisation within Botany Bay, Hillsdale, Matraville,

Pagewood, Eastgardens and Chifley. Correspondence has been sent via post or email to

these stakeholders, with updates provided at project milestones. Engagement activities with

a range of community groups and stakeholders include:

A briefing was offered to Hillsdale Eastgardens Residents Action Group;

On-going liaison with Matraville Precinct, including a presentation by project team

members in August 2013 and March 2014, along with followup emails and phone

conversations with the Precinct chair;

Communication with other community groups, such as the Hillsdale-Eastgardens

Resident Action Group, Botany Industrial Park Community Consultative Committee,

HCB Community Participation Review Committee, Orica Botany Community Liaison

Committee, Save Botany Beach and the Southeast Neighbourhood Centre;

On-going liaison with the Member for Heffron and the Member for Maroubra, including

a presentation by a project team member and personalised email briefings;

On-going liaison with Botany Council staff and councillors, including a project briefing

letter, personalised email and a project briefing by the project team;

Liaison with industrial neighbours in the Botany Industrial Park; and

Web updates.

Following lodgement of the EIS, additional and communications and engagement will be

undertaken with community groups, stakeholders and other individuals, this includes:

Briefings with local and metropolitan media;

Written correspondence with local community groups; and

Letterbox to properties in the surrounding suburbs.

Information provided to the community to date and the media releases are presented in

Appendix D.




Figure 6-20 Residential distribution area


Page 98


COMMUNITY ISSUES 6.2.1

Representatives from Veolia, Hyder and KJA attended the Matraville Precinct meeting on 8

July 2013 to present the Proposal and to identify key community concerns. Correspondence

with other community and special interest groups has included further offers to attend

applicable group meetings. The issues raised by the members of Matraville Precinct and the

section of this EIS where they are addressed are presented in Table 6-16.

Table 6-16 Issues relevant to the Proposal raised in the Matraville Precinct meeting

Aspect Issue Section

addressed

Traffic, transport

and access

Concerns relating to travel routes of trucks transporting waste to

and from the site and safety implications for the surrounding road

network.

8.3

Potential for conflict/risk associated with goods vehicles from

other sites (e.g. Chlorine trucks from Orica).

Impacts on public transport, including:

Impact on bus services.

Safety for cyclists.

Promotion of sustainable methods of transport (e.g. will

showers and bicycle storage facilities be provided).

Noise and vibration Noise relating to trucks, train loading, shunting and “bells and

whistle”.

8.6

Noise relating to trains.

Concern that the noise assessment catchment boundaries are

not large enough (e.g. noise from the port precinct is heard over

1.5km away).

Operational hours leading to noise during the night.

Vermin and pest

management

Concerns that operations will attract pests and vermin. 8.10 and

8.4

Air quality and

odour

Odours and smells including “masking perfumes” used. 8.5

Emissions from trucks.

Visual impact Potential stigma attached to a waste facility and the potential

impact on property values.

8.14

Socio-economic Economic and employment benefits for the local area. 8.13

Impacts on property values.

Frequency of consultancy with the wider community.

Land use impacts – importance of port related activities to the

area.

8.9

Soil and water Management of contaminated land during construction and

operation.

8.1




Aspect Issue Section

addressed

Hazards and risk Frequency and extent of emergencies and incidents and

ramifications of incidents on contaminated land (e.g. fires).

8.7

Options and

alternatives

considered

Other sites considered for the Proposal. 2.3

Future expansion Implications and timeframes of population increases and growing

waste transfer demands, leading to a need to increase the

500,000 tpa at the Banksmeadow TT.

8.9

Adjacent land users

Asciano Services Pty Ltd

Veolia has an ongoing relationship with Pacific National, Asciano’s rail freight company, as

the rail operator for existing train movements between the Clyde Transfer Terminal and the

Crisps Creek Intermodal. Pacific National would also be the rail operator transporting the

containerised waste from Banksmeadow TT to Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility. As noted

above, Pacific National is liaising with ARTC to achieve rail access & train pathways for the

Veolia train.

Veolia has also been consulting with Asciano, as the landowner of the eastern portion of the

Proposal site. Veolia would be leasing the western portion of the Asciano Botany Site, which

would be developed for the purposes of the internal access road and the Veolia sidings.

Asciano will remain the landholder of the adjacent landholder of the remaining portion of the

site.

Veolia and Asciano have been working together to ensure that the remaining portion of

Asciano’s Botany Site isn’t sterilised for any future use as well as ensuring that the design of

the shared entrance to the site caters for truck movements associated with the Proposal,

and up to 100 future truck movements per hour from the remaining portion of the Asciano

Botany Site.

With regards to the stormwater management for the Veolia Proposal, both parties are

working together to develop a holistic solution for the management of stormwater for the

whole of the Asciano site, ensuring that the Proposal isn’t detrimental to the remaining

portion of the Asciano Botany Site.

Other surrounding land users

Veolia has been in consultation with the members of the Botany Industrial Park (BIP),

including Qenos and Orica, regarding the Proposal and its interaction with their on-going

site operations. Veolia has also been in on-going consultation with Botany Building

Recyclers regarding the Proposal and its interaction with their existing operations.

Key points of discussion with adjacent landholders have included:

Stormwater management and management issues.

Outcomes of the quantitative risk assessment undertaken by BIP as a Major Hazard

Facility and implications for the Banksmeadow TT site.

Traffic and access to the site.


Page 100


7 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

A preliminary environmental risk assessment has been undertaken to identify key

environmental risks associated with the establishment and operation of the

Banksmeadow TT. The purpose of the risk assessment was to assist with the identification

of key environmental issues to be addressed within this EIS.

A qualitative determination has been made to identify which environmental issues are

considered as “key” environmental aspects. Key environmental issues include those areas

of the environment in which there are inherent risks before mitigation measures have been

implemented. In addition, any environmental aspect which requires a complex level of

assessment to prove an environmental outcome, either beneficial or adverse, has been

included as a key environmental aspect.

7.1 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The qualitative risk assessment to identify key environmental aspects was undertaken using

Table 7-17, below, to provide a risk ranking based on the likelihood of occurrence of an

event and the consequence of the event occurring.

Table 7-17 Risk analysis categories and criteria for risk ranking

Likelihood Consequence

1 – Not

significant 2 – Minor 3 – Moderate 4 – Major 5 – Severe

A – Almost

certain Moderate Moderate High Very High Very High

B – Likely

Low Moderate High Very High Very High

C – Possible

Low Low Moderate High High

D – Improbable

Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

E – Rare

Low Low Low Low Moderate




The criteria for evaluating likelihood and consequence are identified in Table 7-19 and Table

7-19 respectively.

Table 7-18 Criteria for evaluating likelihood

Level Descriptor Description Frequency Of

Occurrence

A Almost Certain Is expected to occur in

most circumstances

Once per month

B Likely Will probably occur in

most circumstances

Between once a month

and once a year

C Possible Potential to occur Between once a year

and once in 5 years

D Unlikely Limited potential of

occurring

Between once in 5

years and once in 20

years

E Rare May occur only in

exceptional

circumstances

Once in more than 20

years

Table 7-19 Criteria for evaluating consequence

Level Category Safety Financial Operational Environmental

1 Not Significant No medical

control

Low financial

cost

< 6 hours

track closure

or disruption

to facility

operations

No

environmental

harm

2 Minor First Aid only Medium

financial loss

≥ 6 hrs but

less than 24

hrs track

closure or

disruption to

facility

operations

Release to

environment

immediately

contained

3 Moderate Medical

treatment, lost

time injury

(LTI) or

temporary

reversible

illness

Moderate

financial loss

≥ 24 hrs but

less than 48

hrs track

closure or

disruption to

facility

operations

Release to

environment

contained with

internal

assistance


Page 102


Level Category Safety Financial Operational Environmental

4 Major Extensive

injuries –

permanent

partial

disability or

severe LTI

Major

financial loss

≥ 2 days but

less than 5

days track

closure or

disruption to

facility

operations

Release to

environment

contained with

external

assistance

5 Severe Death or

irreversible

disability

Huge financial

loss (>$5M)

≥ 5 days track

closure or

disruption to

facility

operations

Pollution event

with detrimental

effect

Each potential environmental impact was initially ranked between low and very high, based

on the environmental impacts that could potentially result if the issue was unmitigated.

7.2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

The outcomes of the preliminary environmental risk assessment are presented below.

Consideration of environmental risk includes an assessment of uncertainty and a higher risk

ranking has been assigned to those aspects where there is an element of uncertainty.

Table 7-20 Preliminary environmental risk assessment

Issue Potential Impacts Comment Preliminary

Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N) L

an

d u

se

Site incompatible with

surrounding land uses

Site is located within an existing

industrial precinct and is zoned ‘IN1 –

General Industrial’ under the SEPP

(Port Botany).

Low N

So

ils a

nd c

on

tam

ina

tion

Site contamination and

risk of human and

environmental health

risks from exposure.

The Banksmeadow TT site is located

within the area of an Approved

Voluntary Management Proposal

(20101714) and Declaration of

Remediation Site (21074) and

therefore must address SEPP 55.

Very High Y

Disturbance of potential

acid sulfate soils

(PASS) causing

environmental harm

The Banksmeadow TT site is mapped

as a low probability of occurrence of

PASS (NSW NRAtlas, 2013);

however PASS is known to occur

within the area.

Moderate





Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

Erosion of soils from

the Site resulting in

sedimentation within

stormwater and natural

waterways

During construction the Site would

require clearing of vegetation and

existing groundcover, resulting in a

high potential for erosion and

sedimentation if not controlled.

Very High

Discharge of

contaminated

groundwater from the

Site.


within the Botany Sands aquifer

Groundwater Extraction Exclusion

Area, due to the high likelihood of

groundwater contamination due to

previous activities on adjoining sites.

Excavations for construction of the

facility may encounter contaminated

groundwater which, if not managed

appropriately may cause

contamination of surface waters.

Very High

Hyd

rolo

gy a

nd flo

od

ing

Alterations to hydrology

on-site and discharge

levels from Site,

resulting in increased

flood levels

downstream.

The proposal would result in an

increase in impervious surfaces at the

Banksmeadow TT site and

consequently an increase in the

stormwater runoff generated at the

Site. This has the potential to cause

flooding downstream of the Proposal

site.

High Y

Release of leachate

from putrescible waste

to stormwater causing

pollution of surface

water.

Putrescible waste handled at the Site

has the potential to generate leachate

which, if not contained, has the

potential to reach surface or

groundwater and cause pollution.

High

Flood impacts on-site

from Springvale drain.

Modelling undertaken by Botany Bay

City Council has identified the

potential for portions of the Site to be

flood affected.

High

Tra

ffic a

nd

access

Increased traffic

volumes and

frequency, including

heavy vehicles, placing

pressure on

intersection and road

capacities within the

vicinity of the Site.

The facility will be open to receive

waste 24 hours a day, seven days a

week. Vehicle types accessing the

Site will include heavy vehicles up to,

and including, semi-trailers (19.0m).

Access to the Site will require a right

hand turn from Beauchamp Road for

the 20% of vehicles that would access

the site from the north.

High Y


Page 104



Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

Reduction in road

safety as a result of

increased number of

heavy vehicles

operating on the road

networks around the

Banksmeadow TT site.

The Banksmeadow TT proposal

would result in an increase of trucks

accessing the Site from Beauchamp

Road and McPherson Street. The size

and mass of trucks means that they

have greater potential to cause a

serious road accident than light

vehicles.

Moderate

Accidents occurring on-

site as a result of light

and heavy vehicles,

trains, container

handlers and

machinery operating

within close proximity.

The operation of numerous vehicles

on the Site, including trains, trucks,

front-end loaders and container

handlers, has the potential to result in

a collision if not appropriately

managed.

Very high

Operation of rail link

not accommodated

within ARTC’s network.

Insufficient train paths available within

the ARTC rail network to

accommodate the proposal.

Design or operation of the proposal is

not consistent with ARTC operating

standards.

High

Wa

ste

Man

age

men

t

Waste generation Generation of significant quantities of

waste during construction and

inappropriate disposal.

High Y

Disruption to

operations

Unplanned disruption to terminal

operations resulting in large quantities

of waste being stored on site.

Very high

Release of leachate to

stormwater

Failure to separate leachate

generated on the Site from

stormwater, resulting in environmental

harm.

High





Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

Receipt of non-

conforming wastes at

the Site.

Waste which the EPL for the facility

does not permit to be handled at the

site brought to the site.

Moderate

No

ise

an

d v

ibra

tion

Noise impacts on

adjacent receivers from

Site operations.

Operational noise and vibration in

relation to loading, unloading and

dropping of containers, as well as

from reversing vehicles and

deposition of waste on the transfer

terminal floor.

Moderate Y

Noise impacts on

adjacent receivers from

trucks and trains

accessing the Site.

Increased noise from rail and

vehicular traffic going to and from the

Site.

Moderate

Noise and vibration

impacts on adjacent

receivers during

construction works.

High noise levels during construction

causing nuisance or harm to

surrounding receivers.

Moderate

Air q

uality

Odour emissions from

putrescible waste

The handling of large quantities of

waste at the facility has potential to

result in the emission of odour if not

properly managed.

Moderate Y

Dust emissions from

deposition from non-

putrescible waste

The handling of large quantities of

non-putrescible waste and deposition

of dusty loads on the tipping floor has

the potential to result in dust

emissions beyond the Site boundary if

not appropriately controlled.

Moderate

Air pollutants emitted

from vehicles and

trains accessing the

Site and machinery

operating on-site.

The operation of numerous vehicles

on the Site, including trains, trucks,

front-end loaders and container

handlers, has the potential to result in

dust and pollutants reducing ambient

air quality if not properly managed.

Moderate


Page 106



Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

Gre

en

ho

use

Gas A

ssessm

en

t

Release of greenhouse

gas emissions.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions

will be released as a result of

construction and operation of the

Banksmeadow TT, including:

Site preparation and demolition.

Project development (earthworks,

drainage system and utilities

installation, structures).

Waste management operations

(handling and transportation of

putrescible and non-putrescible

waste).

Medium Y

Overall reduction in

GHG emissions

The proposal would result in the

transfer of waste to the Woodlawn

Eco-Project site that comprises the

MBT and Bioreactor, which have both

been designed to minimise GHG

emissions from decomposition of

waste.

Low (Net

benefit)

Bio

div

ers

ity

Reduced biodiversity

as a result of

construction and/or

operation.

The Site supports low biodiversity

values. No threatened species,

populations or communities have

been identified, and there are limited

habitat values on-site.

Low N

Ind

ige

no

us

he

ritag

e

Negative impact on

Indigenous heritage

within the area.

A search of the EPBC Protected

Matters search tool and the AHIMS

NSW register found no items of

Indigenous Significance within a 5 km

radius of the Banksmeadow TT.

Low N N

on

-indig

en

ous h

erita

ge

Negative impact on

non-indigenous

heritage within the

area.

A search of the National heritage

Register and the NSW register found

no items of Non-Indigenous

significance within the vicinity of the

Banksmeadow TT. The SEPP (Port

Botany) identified the ‘Main

Administration Building – “Orica” and

Mature Ficus’ as heritage items,

located within 200m of the Site.

Low N





Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

So

cio

-econ

om

ic

Potential for negative

social impacts in

relation to increased

traffic, noise, and air

pollution (including

odour), as well as

decreased visual

amenity.


within an Industrial precinct within a

low population density area. Nearest

residential area located approximately

250 m to the north-east of the site.

Low N

Changes to local

demographic and local

economic impacts.

The operation of the Banksmeadow

TT is expected to create up to 25 new

jobs, providing economic benefits for

the area.

Low

(Net benefit)

Regional economic

impacts.

The Proposal would provide

significant regional benefits, aiding in

reduced waste transferred to landfill

and increased industrial resource

reuse and provision of a cost-effective

waste management alternative,

increasing competition and reducing

costs, indirectly benefiting SSROC

and thereby their communities.

Low

(Net benefit)

Vis

ual im

pact

Decreased amenity of

the area.


within an existing industrial area, with

adjoining land uses of this nature. The

main shed will would be built at a

higher elevation than the existing

structure, but would be compatible

with adjacent land uses.

Low N

Haza

rd a

nd

Ris

k

Occurrence of hazards

or risks on-site

Potential risks associated with the

operation of the Banksmeadow TT

include; chemical or pollutant spills,

delivery of hazardous or dangerous

goods, fire/explosion within terminal

building, receipt of hot loads and

medical emergencies.

High Y

Disturbance of

asbestos during

construction

Existing on-site buildings contain

asbestos containing materials.

High

Cum

ula

tive

Imp

acts

Cumulative impacts

associated with

increased traffic

volumes from

surrounding

developments.

The Site is located on a main arterial

road, heavily used by port traffic.

Trucks accessing the Banksmeadow

TT would add to existing impacts of

high traffic volumes and its associated

consequences.

Moderate Y


Page 108



Risk

Ranking

Key

Issue?

(Y/N)

Flood risk from

increased stormwater

runoff associated with

increased impervious

areas associated with

development.

The Banksmeadow TT is located in a

highly disturbed catchment with large

areas of impervious surfaces. Further

impervious surfaces will continue to

exacerbate catchment runoff

problems.

Moderate

The following aspects were identified as key environmental issues associated with

development and operation of the Banksmeadow TT site:

Soil and contamination.

Hydrology and flooding.

Traffic and access.


Air quality and odour

Hazards and risks.

Greenhouse gas

Specialist studies have been conducted to determine the impacts associated with the

above-listed aspects and the outcomes of those studies are presented in sections 8.1 to 8.8,

below. Cumulative impacts associated with proposed and approved developments within

the vicinity of the Proposal are addressed in each of these sections and are summarised in

Section 8.15.

Environmental aspects that were not identified as key aspects have also been assessed

and the findings summarised in sections 8.9 to 8.14 below.




8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.1 SOILS AND CONTAMINATION

INTRODUCTION 8.1.1

Potential soil and contamination impacts for the Proposal have been assessed and are

outlined in this Section.

Detailed site investigations have been undertaken on the Asciano owned portion of the site

and the Keith Engineering portion of the site to determine the existing geology and soil

conditions. Key issues associated with the soil landscape of the site include Potential Acid

Sulfate Soils (PASS) and several contaminants of concern from both on and offsite sources.

The key issues for the Proposal for soil and contamination that are assessed within this

Section include:

Soil contamination and risk of human and environmental health risks from exposure.

Disturbance of PASS causing environmental harm.

Erosion of soils from the Site resulting in sedimentation within the stormwater and

natural waterways.

Discharge of contaminated groundwater from the Site.

To assess the key issues identified for soils and contamination, and to satisfy the DGRs this

Section includes the following:

A description of the existing surface and groundwater quality, including an

assessment of any water resource likely to be affected by the Proposal.

An assessment of erosion potential at the site and a description of the proposed

erosion and sediment controls to be implemented during construction.

An assessment of potential site contamination, salinity and acid sulphate soils,

including confirmation that, through the implementation of the remedial strategies

proposed the Site will be suitable for use as a transfer terminal.

Consideration of any dewatering requirements during onsite removal of Underground

Storage Tanks (USTs).

Mitigation and management measures for soil and contamination have been identified in

Section 8.1.4 and include a description of remedial strategies and erosion and sediment

control measures. This section also identifies the suitability of the land for use as a waste

transfer terminal.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 8.1.2

Soils

The soil landscape of the Sydney 1:100 000 sheet (Chapman and Murphy, 1989), mapped the

Banksmeadow TT proposed site as Disturbed Terrain, bordering an area identified as Tuggerah,

described in


Page 110


Table 8-21.

Table 8-21 Soil of the Banksmeadow TT proposed site

ID Name Description

tg Tuggerah Landscape is gently undulating to rolling coastal dunefields.

Soils are deep, buried Podzols, buried sandstone soils,

occasional shallow Siliceous Sands and Yellow Podzolic Soils.

xx Disturbed Topography varies from level plains to hummocky terrain.

Landscape has been extensively disturbed by human activity,

with landfill including soil, rock, building and waste materials.

The soil of the site is generally characterized as being highly disturbed to depths of at least

1 m, with the original soils having been removed or buried, which overlay either compacted

mottled clay or transported fills. The disturbed nature of the soil is reflective of the history of

industrial uses and development that has occurred in the area. Prior to development of the

site, surface soils were likely to have been organic, peaty soils; however, most of this cover

has been removed.

The adjacent Tuggerah soil type is typically characterised as having bleached loose sand to

depths of over 100 cm, overlaying black soft sandy organic pan and brown soft sandy iron

pan materials (Chapman and Murphy. 2004). These soil types are typically highly

permeable, with low fertility, low pH and a permanently high water table.

An investigation of the Banksmeadow TT site (Douglas Partners, 2013; Douglas Partners,

2012) identified the soil profile within the site as follows:

Surface soils, from 0.2 m to 2.4 m below ground level (BGL) comprised hardstand

and fill material, that is predominantly crushed concrete and road based gravel,

Between 2.4 m and 9.7 m BGL soils comprise alluvial sands, typically ranging from

medium density to high density. The alluvial sands also contain thin layers of organic

sand, silty sand and organic clay (peaty sand and peaty clay) with a high organic

content and typically very loose to loose/soft and wet.

Between 9.7 m and 12.9 m below ground level soils comprise hard clay.

The water table at the site was observed to occur at variable depths across the site, ranging

from 1.71 m BGL and greater than 5.14 m BGL. The site is located within the Botany Sands

Aquifer and the ‘Botany Sands Aquifer Interference zone’. It is noted that groundwater levels

within the Botany Sands Aquifer have been observed to range by up to 2 m.

The rainfall erosivity (R-factor) at the site is mapped as between 3,000 and 3,500 under the

Sydney 1:250,000 topographic Sheet (Landcom, 2004). The grade of the site is very low,

being only 0.62%. Applying the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) the site has

been determined to pose a low potential erosion hazard (Lawson and Treloar, 2003).




Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS)

Coastal, low-lying alluvial soils, typically at levels below reduced level (RL) 12, may contain

framboidal pyrite or other sulphides. These are microbially generated microscopic mineral

grains which are stable in anaerobic conditions, such as soils below the water table, or in

dense clay-rich soils that are periodically re-wetted (Douglas Partners, 2013).

The Banksmeadow TT site is mapped as a low probability of occurrence of potential acid

sulfate soils (PASS) (NSW NRATLAS, 2013) (see Figure 8-21), although highly localised

occurrences may occur especially near boundaries with environments with a high probability

of PASS occurrence (Douglas Partners, 2013). PASS would generally be expected to be

greater than 3 m below the ground level (BGL). However, while PASS material is predicted

to occur on site at 3 mBGL, the presence of organic clays and sands in the upper 2 m of the

western portion of the Site indicated the potential for PASS at higher levels.


Page 112


Figure 8-21 Banksmeadow TT –PASS Risk (NSW NRATLAS, 2013)




Contamination

Botany and its surrounding suburbs have been heavily used by industry for at least 100

years, including industries such as tanneries, metal platers, service stations and depots,

landfills, dry cleaners and wool scourers. As a result, chemicals such as chlorinated

hydrocarbons and other solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons (such as petrol and diesel), and

some heavy metals such as chromium, nickel, lead and arsenic are known to have entered

the Botany Sand Beds Aquifer and surrounding lands (NSW Office of Water, 2013).

Douglas Partners have undertaken an assessment of the potential for contamination at the

site. The Phase 2 investigation of the Asciano portion of the Site and the Remediation

Action Plan (RAP) prepared for the Keith Engineering portion of the site are included as

Appendix E. The RAP has been reviewed by an EPA accredited Site Auditor.

Identification of contaminants of concern

To assist in the identification of potential contaminants of concern at the site, Douglas

Partners undertook a search of the Contaminated Land Management Register (CLM

Register). The following properties in the near vicinity (within approximately 1 km) of the

Proposal site were listed as having notices under the CLM Act:

Esso Depot, Banksmeadow: located approximately 600 m north west of the site.

Contaminated by the prescribed activity of distributing petroleum products and by the

prescribed activity (on adjacent premises) of disposing of chemicals or chemical

wastes, including hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and light organochlorine compound

residues.

Olympic/Springvale Drain, Banksmeadow: located approximately 300 m west of

the site. Contaminated with hexachlorobenzene.

Orica Australia Pty Ltd, Banksmeadow: located approximately 100 m north east of

the site. Contaminated with mercury, volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons and semi-

volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Orica Botany Groundwater Plume, Banksmeadow: incorporating the site.

Contaminated with volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons and semi-volatile chlorinated

hydrocarbons.

Stephen Road, Botany: located approximately 1 km north west of the site.

Contaminated with toluene, ethyl benzene and total xylenes.

There are also six sites within 1 km of the Proposal site that have been notified under

section 60 of the CLM Act as potentially contaminated. Land use at these sites was either

chemical industry or petroleum storage. Given the heavy industrial uses in the surrounding

area, it is considered that there is a potential for migration of contaminants onto the site

through the movement of groundwater.

Douglas Partners’ assessment included a review of previous contamination assessment

reports and investigations undertaken at the site, site history and historical title deeds to

identify the potential contaminating activities that have occurred on the site. Douglas

Partners’ investigation also identified two Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSS)

present on the Keith Engineering land, comprising three underground storage tanks (USTs)

and one bowser. The UPSS identified comprise:

One UST, located in the north western corner of the Keith Engineering land, and is

identifiable by its fill point. This tank is no longer in use but is believed to have


Page 114


contained diesel. The UST could not be detected by the ground penetrating radar

(GPR) survey used during the April 2012 investigation and no WorkCover records

were found for the tank. As such, the location, size and extent of the UST are

unknown.

Two USTs, located south east of the main factory building along with a bowser. Both

USTs are disused, and only the southern UST could be located by the GPR survey.

Fill points were identified for both USTs. The original WorkCover plan sighted for the

April 2012 investigation suggested that the USTs were oriented in a north-south

direction, while more recent plans show them to be oriented east-west.

On the Asciano land there is a disused diesel pipeline, which enters underground from

Beauchamp Road and rises above ground approximately 125 m into the site. An

underground pit is located in the south east, near Beauchamp Road, providing access to the

underground section of the pipeline at this point.

Table 8-22 provides a summary of the potential contamination sources and contaminants of

potential concern identified.

Table 8-22 Potential contamination sources and contaminants of concern

Potential source Description of potentially

contaminating activity

Contaminants of concern

Imported fill of unknown origin Importation of potentially

contaminated filling soils.

Asbestos has been identified in

fill at the site.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAH) and petroleum

hydrocarbons have been

detected in fill material.

On-site buildings and

structures

Buildings with asbestos

present

UPSS

Substation

Potentially unidentified

sources

Elevated levels of asbestos,

petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH

and benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylenes

(BTEX) have been identified on

the site.

There is considered to be a

potential for phenols, volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) and

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

beneath existing buildings and

structures.

Previous land uses Metal casting

Metal fabrication

Manufacture and /or storage

of sealants

Railway activities

Stockpiling of contaminated

waste

Zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons,

BTEX, asbestos and PAH.




Potential source Description of potentially

contaminating activity

Contaminants of concern

Current land uses Fabrication of stage sets

Carpentry

Metal soldering and

fabrication work

Storage, including skip bins

and truck trailers

Railway activities

Asbestos.

No other contaminants have

been identified to be present at

the site as a result of current

activities.

Adjacent land uses Botany Goods railway line

Botany Industrial Park

Botany Building Recyclers –

waste and recycling facility

Orica Southlands site

Light industrial units

Petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH,

hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and

VOC.

Metals were detected in

concentrations in up-gradient

wells, but not at concentrations of

concern.

In summary, the primary contaminants of potential concern (COPC) at the site, with respect

to human health and the environment were identified, based on the contaminants identified

to previously be present at the site known previous site uses and up-gradient site uses, are

considered to be:

Petroleum hydrocarbons.

PAH.

Asbestos.

Heavy metals.

BTEX.

Volatile organic compounds (VOC).

Other potential contaminants of concern identified based on the site use are:

Phenols.

Cyanide.

Ammonia.

The following commonly found contaminants in fill were also considered to be a potential for

concern:

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

Organochlorine pesticides (OCP).

Organophosphorous pesticides (OPP).


Page 116


Assessment guidelines and site investigation levels

The National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999,

as updated 11 April 2013 (the ASC NEPM) is made under the Commonwealth National

Environment Protection Council Act 1994 and is given effect in NSW under section 105 of

the CLM Act. The purpose of the ASC NEPM is to establish a nationally consistent

approach to the assessment of site contamination and to provide adequate protection of

human health and the environment (ASC NEPM, s.5).

The ASC NEPM establishes health, environmental and groundwater investigation levels and

screening levels for contaminants; including those contaminants identified as COPC at the

site. The following paragraphs describe the guideline values applicable to the site under the

ASC NEPM.

Health investigation levels (HILs) have been developed for a broad range of metals

and organic substances, including pesticides. The HILs are applicable for assessing

human health risk via all relevant pathways of exposure, such as direct ingestion and

dermal contact. As the Proposal would use the land for industrial purposes the HIL

guideline values that are generally applicable are the HIL D - Commercial/Industrial.

Petroleum hydrocarbon management limits (Management Limits) are applicable to

petroleum hydrocarbon compounds only. They are applicable as screening levels

following evaluation of human health and ecological risks and risks to groundwater

resources. They are relevant for sub-surface leakage of petroleum compounds has

occurred and when decommissioning industrial sites, including the removal of UPSS.

The Management Limits adopted for the Proposal are based on the commercial

/industrial use of the site and the coarse nature of the soils on site.

Groundwater investigation levels (GILs) are the concentrations of a contaminant in

groundwater above which further investigation or remediation is required. GILs are

based on Australian water quality guidelines and drinking water guidelines and are

applicable for assessing human health risk and ecological risk from direct contact with

groundwater. GILs are established under the ASC NEPM for fresh water, marine

water and drinking water. Marine water’ GILs have been adopted as a conservative

approach. The receiving water body is considered to be Botany Bay, with Port Botany

located approximately one kilometre to the south of the site. As the site is located

within the Botany Basin Groundwater Extraction Exclusion area, where the use of

groundwater for any purpose is banned, adoption of the marine GILs is considered to

be a conservative approach.

Health screening levels for asbestos contamination in soil have been adopted

within the ASC NEPM for bonded asbestos containing material (ACM), friable

asbestos and all forms of asbestos. The Health Screening Levels (HSL) for asbestos

are prescribed for industrial and commercial sites, based on a percentage weight of

asbestos material in the soil.

Phase 2 investigations of the site have been undertaken to characterise the nature and

extent of contamination at the site and to determine if the site is suitable for development as

a transfer terminal. Investigations were undertaken for both the Keith Engineering portion of

the site and the Asciano owned portion of the site. The findings of those investigations, as

assessed against the ASC NEPM and other applicable guidelines, are summarised below.

Keith Engineering land

A Phase 2 investigation was undertaken by Douglas Partners in 2004,which included drilling

21 bores in the accessible areas of the site (note only limited access was available in the




buildings, due to the operational nature of the site at the time of the investigation). The

investigation found elevated zinc concentrations in both soil and groundwater, with the

highest elevations found in the north-west and south-west portions of the site. Slightly

elevated levels of chromium, copper and lead were also detected in groundwater.

A soil sample with significantly elevated concentrations of total recoverable hydrocarbons

(TRH) was recoded a 115 at a depth of 3.0 mBGL. Slightly elevated levels of

benzo(a)pyrene, TRH and benzene were also detected at sample locations 116 and 110 at

a depth of 0.5 mBGL. TRH, benzene and phenathrene were detected in groundwater from

Well 110, located near the UPSS in the north west of the site. Toluene was detected in

Well 103 to the west of the site. VOCs were detected in all groundwater wells, and are

assumed to be sourced from off site.

Asbestos was detected in four of the six soil samples that were analysed for it.

Douglas Partners undertook a supplementary contamination assessment and acid sulphate

soil investigation in 2012. The investigation comprised 23 soil test bores, eight of which

were converted to groundwater monitoring wells. Laboratory results obtained identified the

following:

TRH (C10-C36) contamination was present in soils, with the most elevated results in

the area of/down gradient of Well 216 and the diesel UPSS.

PAH contamination was present in soils, with the most elevated results in Bore 214,

in the main factory building.

Asbestos contamination is present in soils.

Zinc concentrations in groundwater were significantly lower than previously detected.

Relatively low levels of dissolved phase TRH C10-C36 were present in groundwater.

Cobalt was present groundwater at marginally elevated levels.

Acid sulphate soils are present on site.

A further assessment was undertaken by Douglas Partners in 2013 to assess the extent of

phase separated hydrocarbons (PSH) associated with the UPSS on site. The investigation

found no signs of the PSH in Well 216, as contaminants identified down gradient comprised

different compounds, and it was determined that the PSH in Well 216 is not mobile.

A summary of exceedances against the ASC NEPM investigation and health levels is

presented in Table 8-23. The location of the borehole and monitoring wells on the site are

shown in Figure 8-22.

Table 8-23 Summary of guideline exceedances observed on Keith Engineering site

Sample ID Sample type Contaminant Sample result Criterion Guideline

Monitoring well

(MW) 110

Groundwater Zinc 8,000 µg/ L 15 µg/ L ASC NEPM -

GIL


Page 118



MW 110 Groundwater TRH C6-C9 150 µg/ L 150 µg/ L Airport

(Environment

Protection)

Regulation

199710

MW 110 Groundwater TRH C10-C28 1,520 µg/ L 600 µg/ L Airport

(Environment

Protection)

Regulation

1997

Borehole (BH) 110

/ 0.5

Soil Zinc 58,200

mg/kg11

400,000 mg/kg ASC NEPM

– HIL D

BH 115/ 3.0 Soil TRH C10-C36 16,300 mg/ kg 1,000 mg/kg C10-C16

3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits

MW 209 Groundwater TRH C15-C28 660 µg/ L 600 µg/ L C10-C36 Airport

(Environment

Protection)

Regulation

1997

BH 214 / 0.9-1.0 Soil Benzo(a)pyrene 179.8 mg/kg 40 mg/kg ASC NEPM

– HIL D

BH 214 / 0.9-1.0 Soil TRH C15 – C36 16,800 mg/kg 1,000 mg/kg C10-C16

3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits

MW 216 Groundwater TRH C10-C36 4,100 µg/ L 600 µg/ L Airport

(Environment

Protection)

Regulation

1997

10 The Commonwealth Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, Schedule 2, Water Pollution Accepted

Limits: Table 1.03 Accepted Limits of Concentration. This was used in the absence of other guideline values.

11 Although this result is within the applicable criteria, remediation is considered necessary based on the likelihood

that this is a contributing source to the zinc contamination in groundwater at this location.





BH 216 / 0.7-0.8 Soil TRH C15-C36 25,9000 mg/kg 3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits

BH 216 / 0.9-1 Soil TRH C15-C36 7,9000 mg/kg 3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits


3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits

BH 219 / 1-1.4 Soil TRH C10-C14 18,600 mg/ kg 1,000 mg/kg C10-C16

3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

10,000 mg/kg C34-C40

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits


3,500 mg/kg C16-C34

ASC NEPM

–

Management

limits

Based on the presence of significant quantities of asbestos containing materials (ACM)

observed in fill on the site, further assessment of the extent and percentage asbestos

content in soils against the ASC NEPM HSL levels for asbestos was not considered

warranted as it was assumed that all fill material on the site would exceed the ASC NEPM

HSL for asbestos.


Page 120


Figure 8-22 Sampling locations and areas of environmental concern, Keith Engineering land




Asciano land

A Phase 2 Contamination Assessment was undertaken by Douglas Partners for the portion

of the Asciano owned land that would be part of the Proposal. The following scope of works

was undertaken to assessment contamination at the site:

Collection of samples from 27 test pits across the site. Test pits were excavated to a

depth of approximately 0.5 m into natural material, to the groundwater table or prior

refusal/ collapse. Soil samples were collected at regular intervals, upon signs of

contamination (if present), at the observed water table and at test pit completion.

Drilling of three test bores using solid flight augers to a depth of up to between

4.5 mBGL to 4.7 mBGL and installation of groundwater monitoring wells in the three

test bores. Groundwater samples were collected from each of these wells.

Testing of fibre-cement fragments that were found at test pits 14 & 27 to identify the

presence or absence of asbestos.

All samples were collected in accordance with the sampling analysis and quality plan

prepared by Douglas Partners and tested in a NATA accredited laboratory.

A summary of exceedances against the adopted ASC NEPM criteria is presented in Table

8-25. The location of the test pits and monitoring wells on the site are shown in Figure 8-23.

Both cementitious fragments returned positive results for chrysotile and amosite asbestos.

Table 8-24 Summary of Guideline exceedances; Asciano portion of land*

Sample ID /

Depth

Sample type Contaminant Sample result Criterion Guideline

Pit 2 /0.5 -0.7 Soil Asbestos Positive for

amosite

asbestos

0.05% weight for

weight

ASC NEPM – HSL for

asbestos contamination in soil

Pit 15 /1-1.1 Soil TRH C10-C16 2,700 mg/kg 1,000 mg/kg ASC NEPM – Management

Limit (F2)

Pit 15/2.5-2.6 Soil TRH C10-C16 3,300 mg/kg 1,000 mg/kg ASC NEPM – Management

Limit (F3)


Limit (F2)

TRH C16-C34 18,000 mg/kg 3,500 mg/kg ASC NEPM – Management

Limit (F3)

Pit 16/1-1.1 Soil TRH C10-C16 3,800 mg/kg 1,000 mg/kg ASC NEPM – Management

Limit (F2)


Limit (F3)


Limit (F2)


Page 122


Sample ID /

Depth

Sample type Contaminant Sample result Criterion Guideline


Limit (F3)

Pit 24/09-1.0 Soil TRH C10-C16 1,900 mg/kg 1,000 mg/kg ASC NEPM – Management

Limit (F2)


Limit (F3)

Pit 27/0-0.3 Soil Asbestos Chrysotile and

amosite

asbestos

detected

0.05% weight for

weight

ASC NEPM – HSL for

asbestos contamination in soil

Well

GWCPT4

Groundwater Zinc 17-86 ug/L 15 µg/ L ASC NEPM - GIL

*Note: The ASC NEPM thresholds used to assess the Site are generic investigation levels

provided for “Tier 1” assessment of site contamination. These investigation levels are not

“clean up” levels, and exceedances of the generic investigation levels do not in themselves

trigger the need for remediation. Further investigations would be undertaken on the Site to

determine the actual risk from contamination and/ or management as required to render the

site suitable for the proposed Waste Transfer Facility.

In summary, petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was present at levels above those

prescribed in the ASC NEPM at test pit locations 15, 16, 20 and 24. Groundwater samples

assessed contained petroleum hydrocarbons in concentrations below the 600 μg/L within

the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, Schedule 2 Water Pollution

Accepted Limits: Table 1.03 – Accepted limits of contamination, which was adopted for the

site in the absence of GILs for petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater. Zinc concentrations

in one groundwater well were in excess of the ASC NEPM GIL for zinc; however the result

was within the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (ADWG) criterion for zinc, being

3,000 μg/L.

Several pieces of fibre cement were observed at the ground surface, with one piece tested

and confirmed to contain asbestos. One or more fragments of fibre cement were also

observed in test pits 14 and 15 and asbestos was detected in three filling samples from test

pits 2, 14, and 27. All of the filling samples with detectable asbestos were observed to

contain inclusions of building debris. Whilst the total quantity of fibre cement observed at the

Site was low, some inclusions of building debris were observed in most test locations,

indicating an elevated risk of a low frequency of fibre cement fragments being present

throughout the filling.

Past contamination outside development site

A stockpile containing Scheduled Chemical Waste, as determined under the NSW

Scheduled Chemical Wastes Chemical Control Order 2004, was formerly located on the

Asciano owned land, to the north-east of the Proposal site. In 2011, the stockpile was

excavated and removed from site. E3 Consult was engaged in 2012 to report on the




excavation, off-site disposal and validation of the removal of the contaminated stockpile.

The validation also included monitoring of groundwater wells at the site.

The validation report concluded that the stockpile area had been remediated to the

validation levels. The former HCB stockpile was not located on the Banksmeadow TT Site

that is subject to this proposal and the former presence of this stockpile has no impact or

affect on this proposal.


Page 124


Figure 8-23 Sampling locations, Asciano land




IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8.1.3

Erosion and sedimentation

Construction of the Proposal would involve disturbance to the whole site, resulting in

exposure of soils and exposing the site to risk of erosion. Given the large area of

disturbance required at the site, there is a high potential for erosion, even though the site

has low sloping topography and a low erosion hazard risk.

Stockpiling of soil materials that have been excavated during construction may have the

potential to result in sediment laden runoff and dust. The low soil erodibility of the soil type

found within the area of the Banksmeadow TT site, which is predominantly highly permeable

course sand grains, means that the sedimentation risk is lowered.

Increased salinity may also become an issue during the construction phase, as a result of

changes and impediments to surface drainage, reductions in vegetation coverage, or an

overall upwards movement of water in the soil profile.

Potential acid sulphate soils

Where acid sulphate soils are present, but are kept out of contact with air, they are relatively

stable, and generally in ‘equilibrium’ with the local environment. However, if sulphide-

bearing or pyritic soils are disturbed by excavation or dewatering, thereby allowing ready

access of oxygen to the sulphides from air, an oxidation reaction takes place. This results in

the generation of sulphuric acid, or acid sulphates. The acid can be transported by water,

and if allowed to build up in sufficient concentrations, can negatively impact the environment

and engineered structures (Douglas Partners, 2013).

Existing site elevations typically range between 5 to 10 m AHD and groundwater levels

range from 1.6 m to greater than 4.4 m BGL. Development of the Proposal would involve

regrading of the site by raising the site to form a level surface; hence there is limited

potential for disturbance of large quantities of PASS. Excavation on the site would be limited

to removal of the UPSS and excavations for building footings. Where these excavations

would intersect the groundwater table, there is a potential that PASS may be disturbed and

therefore an acid sulphate soils management plan should be prepared.

Contamination

Keith Engineering land

Douglas Partners developed a Conceptual Site Model for the Keith Engineering site to

represent the site-related information regarding contamination sources, receptors and

exposure pathways between those sources and receptors. The purpose of the conceptual

site model is to identify how the site became contaminated and how potential receptors may

become exposed to the contamination.

The potential sources of contamination on the Keith Engineering land are discussed above

and presented in Table 8-22. Potential exposure pathways for contamination that were

identified include:

Direct contact with contaminated soil or groundwater during construction or operation

of the Proposal.

Inhalation of contaminated dust or vapours during construction or maintenance of the

Proposal.


Page 126


Leaching of contaminants and vertical mitigation into groundwater.

Lateral migration of groundwater providing base flow to watercourses.

Fire / explosion.

Off-site dermal contact with or ingestion of groundwater from the site was not considered to

be a potential exposure pathway due to the site and areas down gradient of the site being

located within the Botany Aquifer Zone 1 Groundwater Extraction Exclusion Area.

Potential receptors that were identified include:

Site users during operation of the Proposal.

Construction workers, during the construction phase of the Proposal.

Intrusive maintenance workers.

Land users in adjacent areas.

Receiving groundwater.

Surface water and ecology in Botany Bay.

Buried infrastructure.

The primary surface water receptor of groundwater and surface runoff from the site is

considered to be Botany Bay, with Port Botany located approximately one kilometre south of

the site. Botany Bay is considered to be a highly disturbed environment.

Table 8-25 presents the sources, pathways and receptors identified within the conceptual

site model, along with the contaminants of concern and applicable threshold criteria for the

contaminants.

Table 8-25 Conceptual site model for Keith Engineering land (Douglas Partners, 2013)

Source of

contamination

Potential Pathway Receptor Contaminants

Relevant to Pathway

Threshold Criteria

S1 Filling

S2 On-site

Structures

(asbestos

buildings, UPSS,

substation)

S3 Previous

metal works and

possible sealant

manufacture

S4 metals works,

bin and truck

storage

S5 Adjacent

industrial

P1: Direct contact

with soil/

groundwater

(ingestion and

dermal)

R1 – Proposed site

users (commercial/

industrial)

Benzo(a)pyrene

(Soil)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

(Groundwater)

HIL-D

HSL – D Direct

Contact

Australian Drinking

Water Guidelines

(ADWG)

R2 – Construction

workers

Benzo(a)pyrene

(Soil)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

(Groundwater)

HIL-D

HSL – D Direct

Contact

ADWG

R3 – Intrusive

maintenance

workers

Benzo(a)pyrene

(Soil)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

(Groundwater)

HIL-D

HSL -Intrusive

Maintenance Worker

- Direct Contact

ADWG




Source of

contamination

Potential Pathway Receptor Contaminants

Relevant to Pathway

Threshold Criteria

landuses R7 – Buried

infrastructure

(damage to services)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons (Soil)

PSH (Groundwater)

Management Limits

P2: Inhalation of

dust and/or vapours

R1 – Proposed site

users(commercial/

industrial)

Asbestos, elevated

Petroleum

hydrocarbons (Soil)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

(Groundwater)

HSL-D - Vapour

inhalation

R2 – Construction

workers

HSL-D - Vapour

inhalation

R3 – Intrusive

maintenance

workers

HSL-Intrusive

Maintenance Worker

- Vapour inhalation

R4 – Land users in

adjacent areas

(commercial/

industrial)

HSL-D - Vapour

inhalation

P3 – Leaching of

contaminants and

vertical mitigation

into groundwater.

R5: Groundwater Petroleum

hydrocarbons (Soil)

PAH (Soil)

Zinc (Soil)

GIL – Marine

Management Limits

(PSH formation)

P4 – Surface water

run-off.

R6: Surface water

(Botany Bay)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

PAH

Zinc (Soil)

GIL - Marine

P5 – Lateral

migration of

groundwater

providing base flow

to watercourses

R6: Surface water

(Botany Bay)

Petroleum

hydrocarbons

(Groundwater)

Zinc (Groundwater)

GIL - marine

P8 - fire, explosion R9 – Buildings Petroleum

hydrocarbons (Soil)

PSH (Groundwater)

Management Limits

Based on the conceptual site model, the intrusive sampling investigations undertaken on the

Keith Engineering site and assessment against the ASC NEPM, Douglas Partners identified

six areas of environmental concern that require remediation and /or management prior to

use of the site for the purposes of the Proposal. The areas of environmental concern are

described in Table 8-26, below and shown in Figure 8-24.


Page 128


Table 8-26 Areas of environmental concern and Guideline exceedances - Proposal site

Area of Environmental Concern

(AEC) ID

Contaminant(s) of Concern /

Issue

Relevant Borehole/ Well (s)

AEC 1 PSH

Potential for dissolved phase

petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX,

PAH in groundwater associated

with the PSH.

BH 115

BH / MW 216

BH / MW 303

AEC 2 UPSS with two USTs and

bowser.

Not applicable.

AEC 3 Benzo(a)pyrene in soil

petroleum hydrocarbons in soil

BH 214

AEC 4 UPSS with 1 UST

Petroleum hydrocarbons in soil

Zinc in soil

Zinc in groundwater

BH / MW 110

BH 219

BH / MW 220

AEC 5 Substation No testing due to operation.

AEC 6 Asbestos in soil Filling over entire site

Asciano land

The Phase 2 investigation undertaken on the Asciano owned portion of the site concluded

that, while there are contamination levels on the site in exceedance of the investigations

levels prescribed under the ASC NEPM, the land can be made suitable for use of the land

as a transfer terminal. The following issues and areas would, however, need to be managed

to make the land suitable for the Proposal:

Management of petroleum hydrocarbons contamination in soils, particularly adjacent

to the former, aboveground fuel line.

Capping and / or removal and management of asbestos contamination in soils.

Further assessment of areas that were not accessible at the time of preparing the

Phase 2 investigation due to the presence of live services, to identify any additional

soil or groundwater contamination. The main contaminant of concern is considered to

be petroleum-related compounds, associated with the disused diesel pipeline.

Vapour intrusion risk assessment

The groundwater of the Botany Sands Aquifer is contaminated, and the contamination

plume extended beneath the Proposal site. Volatile and semi-volatile chemicals, such as

petroleum hydrocarbons and PAHs, which may be present as contaminants in soils or

groundwater, have the potential to partition into the air in the soil pore spaces and can move




into buildings, ambient air, confined spaces or excavations on a site. The ASC NEPM has

developed HSLs to assess vapour intrusion potential, which are based on three-phase

equilibrium theory.

Douglas Partners undertook a review of the HSLs for petroleum compounds and fractions

as prescribed under the ASC NEPM to assess the risk to human health, posed by the

Proposal site12

via inhalation of vapours sourced from groundwater. Site specific HSLs were

calculated using HSLs for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater, part 1: technical

development document, Technical report no. 10 (CRC for Contamination Assessment and

Remediation of the Environment, 2011). The assessment adopted a conservative approach,

assuming that average depth to groundwater of 1.0 mBGL. The assessment concluded that

the Groundwater HSLs for vapour intrusion were ‘Not Limiting’13

to human health for the

within the Banksmeadow TT building. In accordance with the ASC NEPM, when a

calculated HSL in soil or groundwater exceeds the HSL, the vapour in the soil or above

groundwater cannot result in an unacceptable vapour risk.

While the risk of vapour intrusion into the Proposal terminal building is considered low, the

ASC NEPM recommends soil vapour measurements for vapour intrusion when the depth to

groundwater across the site is less than 2 m. Further investigation of the potential for vapour

intrusion and exposure of construction and maintenance workers would be undertaken once

construction details have been confirmed and the extent of excavation into petroleum

contaminated areas has been defined.

Remedial strategy

Douglas Partners (2013) undertook a review of remedial options that are available for the

Proposal site. The key drivers for remediation and the proposed remedial strategy to

achieve the drivers are presented in Table 8-27.

Table 8-27 Drivers for adopted remedial approach and proposed remedial strategy for Proposal site

Driver / Outcome sought Proposed remedial strategy

Rendering the site suitable for the proposed

Banksmeadow TT from a health perspective.

It is considered that this can be achieved by

removal of contamination potentially posing a risk

to site users caused by vapour, particularly

vapour intrusion into the buildings, removal of the

volatile chemicals and by capping of the

remaining contamination to remove the exposure

pathway.

12 This assessment was included in both the Phase 2 Assessment for the Asciano land and the RAP for the Keith

Engineering site.

13 The soil saturation concentration is defined as the soil concentration at which the pore water phase cannot

dissolve any more of an individual chemical. The soil vapour that is in equilibrium with the pore water will be at its

maximum. If the derived soil HSL exceeds the soil saturation concentration, a soil vapour source concentration for a

petroleum mixture could not exceed a level that would result in the maximum allowable vapour risk for the given

scenario.


Page 130


Driver / Outcome sought Proposed remedial strategy

Managing the risk of unacceptable impacts on the

environment.

It is considered that this would primarily be

achieved through the mitigation of migration of

contamination off-site in groundwater. Given that

the site is within a Groundwater Extraction

Exclusion Area, it is considered that the receiving

bodies are not sensitive and that the actual risk

posed by the site is therefore low. As such, a

‘clean-up to the extent practicable’ (CUTEP)

strategy is proposed. It was assessed that

removal of the source of contamination to

groundwater, including the UPSS, PSH and

potentially leachable petroleum hydrocarbons and

zinc contaminated soils is suitable to manage

potential impacts on the environment.

Measures to remediate and manage contamination on the site are presented in Section

8.1.4, below.

Contamination risk during construction

During construction small volumes of fuels and chemicals may be stored on the sites for use

by machinery and equipment. There is potential for these substances to spill on to the

ground and spread to the surrounding environment during refuelling activities, transport and

delivery if not managed appropriately.

Measures to mitigate the potential for contamination during construction of the Proposal are

set out below.

Contamination risk during operation

Oils, fuel, lubricants and other chemical substances would be required for the operation of

vehicles, plant and machinery during operation of the Proposal. Accidental spills or leaks

within the site and rail corridor have the potential to result in contaminants being transported

into the surrounding environment and groundwater. This risk is highest in the maintenance

area, where the majority of chemicals would be stored, and associated with the operation of

the proposed 20,000 L diesel storage tank. Accidental release of leachate from the leachate

storage tank also poses a potential source of contaminations.

To minimise the risk of release from the diesel storage tank, the proposed tank would be

self-bunded diesel tank compliant with AS - 1940-2004 The storage and handling of

flammable and combustible liquids would be used for the storage of the diesel.

Measures to mitigate the potential for contamination during operation of the Proposal are set

out below.




Figure 8-24 Areas of environmental concern and exceedances – Proposal site


Page 132


MITIGATION MEASURES 8.1.4

Contamination and remediation

The Site would require remediation and on-going management to render it appropriate for the

operation of the Banksmeadow TT. The following remedial and management actions would be

undertaken as part of the Proposal:

A Health and Safety Plan and risk assessment would be developed and implemented

prior to construction commencing and all construction workers and staff would be

inducted into the plan. The Health and Safety Plan would include details of site

contamination, risks and management measures prior to work commencing. The plan

would also outline the difference between inhalation and other pathways where contact

with contaminants is possible (e.g. ingestion, dermal absorption) and measures to

minimise exposure pathways, including identification of appropriate personal protective

equipment to be worn during remediation works.

Implementation of the Douglas Partners 2013 RAP for the Keith Engineering land and

development & implementation of a plan, detailing management of contamination

identified on Asciano land, to ensure the Proposal site is suitable for use as a transfer

terminal. These reports would clearly describe the works necessary to remediate or

manage the contamination identified at each site and would include an unexpected finds

protocol and contingency measures to manage other issues which may arise during the

course of redevelopment works. The plans would be subject to review and approval of a

NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor. At a minimum the remedial works would include:

- Investigation and assessment of the extent semi-volatile and volatile organic

compound concentrations in groundwater, particularly in relation to future remediation

and excavation works at the site and the potential for vapour intrusion into buildings.

- Investigation of additional, currently unidentified UPSS or USTs present on the site

and the aboveground petroleum pipeline and storage area on the Asciano land.

These investigations would be undertaken by a Validation Consultant during site

establishment.

- Removal of the UPSS and associated infrastructure in accordance with Australian

Standard (AS) 4976-2008: The removal and disposal of underground petroleum

storage tanks and under the supervision of an Environmental Consultant, specialising

in remediation.

- Removal of any mobile PSH observed during construction to the extent practicable

and disposal at an appropriate facility.

- Removal of residual PSH observed during the UPSS removal works, through

excavation and off-site disposal, or on-site treatment if necessary.

- Removal of PSH contaminated groundwater as encountered during excavation works

and removal of the UPSS and disposal at an appropriately licensed facility.

- Removal of other contaminated soils not considered suitable for on-site capping due

to potential risks to groundwater or human health (related to vapour intrusion) and

disposal at an appropriately licensed facility in accordance with the Waste

Classification Guidelines.

- On-site capping of contaminated soils that not considered to present an on-going risk

to groundwater or human health if retained on-site, including asbestos contaminated

soils.




Remedial works undertaken on the Proposal site would be subject to a Site Auditor

Statement, certifying that the works undertaken have rendered the Site suitable for use as

a waste transfer terminal.

Veolia would consult with the EPA and Orica regarding the interaction of construction and

remediation works associated with the Proposal to ensure that any dewatering activities

associated with construction and dewatering do not conflict with the Orica Voluntary

Management Plan remediation works.

Disposal of asbestos containing material and soils would be undertaken by a licensed

asbestos removalist.

Further details of the proposed remedial approach for the Keith Engineering land is presented in

Appendix E.

A detailed plan for the Asciano land is currently under development and would be included in

the CEMP for the Site.

Construction soil management measures

Mitigation measures to reduce erosion and sediment pollution during construction of the

Proposal would include:

A Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) would be developed prior to

commencement of construction, in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004).

Progressive erosion and sediment control plans (ESCP) would be developed in

accordance with CSWMP to reflect changes to the level of disturbance. Strategies

adopted in the CSWMP would include the following:

- Installation of drainage infrastructure and sediment and erosion controls prior to

construction commencing.

- Where possible, run-on water from upslope lands would be diverted around the site

while land disturbance activities are being carried out.

- Water flows on site would be directed, where possible, across the site at non-erodible

velocities, and stormwater drainage works would be employed to convey stormwater

through and away from the site. Permanent or temporary drainage works would be

installed early in the construction program to minimise uncontrolled drainage and

associated erosion.

- If required, construction sediment basins would be located and sized in accordance

with the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004) and constructed prior to commencement of site

disturbance.

- Areas of exposed soil would be limited to those areas being actually worked.

- Stockpiles would be located away from flow paths on appropriate impermeable

surfaces, to minimise potential sediment transportation. Where practicable, stockpiles

would be stabilised, if in place for more than ten days, and would be formed with

sediment filters in place immediately downslope.

- Disturbed areas would be stabilised as soon as practicable.

- Earthworks would not take place during or after heavy rain, if the activity is likely to

cause soil erosion or structural damage.

- The wheels of all vehicles would be cleaned prior to exiting the construction site

where excavation occurs to prevent the tracking of mud. Where this is not practical,

or excessive soil transfer occurs onto paved areas, street cleaning would be

undertaken when necessary.


Page 134


Excavated material would be reused on site where possible (subject to the provisions of

the remedial strategy for the Site). Any excavated material that requires disposal would

be subject to waste classification under the DECCW Waste Classification Guidelines

2009 and would be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility.

An Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) would be developed prior to

commencement of construction. Construction workers would be instructed on the

identification of PASS and ASS during the site induction and the requirements of the

ASSMP. The plan would require works to cease in the vicinity of any unexpected potential

acid sulphate soils and an environmental consultant to be notified and requested to

advise on the appropriate course of action.

Operation Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would be adopted for the Proposal during the operational

phase:

Site Environmental Management Plans (SEMP) would be prepared and implemented for

the Asciano land and the Keith Engineering land, with provisions for on-going regular

inspection and maintenance of the capped contaminated soils. The SEMPs would be

reviewed and approved by a NSW EPA accredited site auditor.

Appropriate mitigation measures for stormwater runoff detention would be implemented,

reducing the risk of erosion and sedimentation as a result of excessive runoff. These

measures are outlined in Section 8.2.4.

The diesel tank would be self-bunded and compliant with AS - 1940-2004 The storage

and handling of flammable and combustible liquids. The diesel fuel tank and refuelling

area would be appropriately bunded and all refuelling would take place within this area.

An Incident Response Plan (IRP) would be developed for operation of the site. The plan

would specify the procedure to be followed in the event of a spill, including the notification

requirements and use of absorbent material to contain the spill. A spill kit would be

provided onsite at all times.

A refuelling procedure would be developed and implemented for all refuelling activities

undertaken. Any fuel, lubricant, or hydraulic fluid spillages would be collected using

absorbent material and the contaminated material disposed of to a licensed waste facility.

CONCLUSION 8.1.5

This Section outlined the potential impacts on soils and contamination associated with the

Proposal. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk and consequences

associated with the key issues are summarise below:

Site contamination: Douglas Partners have undertaken detailed site investigations on

the Site and identified six areas of environmental concern that require remediation and/or

management prior to the use of the Keith Engineering land for the purpose of the

Proposal. Management of contamination would also be required on Asciano land to make

the land suitable for the Proposal. The Remedial Action Plan would be implemented for

the Keith Engineering land and a plan of management would be prepared and

implemented for the Asciano land. In addition, a Site Environmental Management Plan

(SEMP) would be developed for the Keith Engineering land that would specify measures

for on-going management of soil and groundwater contamination.

Potential Acid Sulfate Soils: Excavation of the Site intersecting the groundwater table

may have potential to disturb Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS). An Acid Sulfate Soil

Management Plan (ASSMP) would be developed prior to commencement of construction.




All excavations with the potential to expose PASS or Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS)

would be undertaken in accordance with the ASSMP.

Erosion and sedimentation: Erosion of soils from the Site may result in sedimentation

within stormwater. However, the Site has been determined to pose a low potential erosion

hazard, and the highly permeable course sand grains found within the areas means that

the sedimentation risk is low. A Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP)

would be developed prior to commencement of construction, in accordance with the Blue

Book (Landcom, 2004). Progressive erosion and sediment control plans (ESCPs) would

be developed in accordance with the CSWMP to reflect changes to the level of

disturbance.

Contaminated groundwater: Phase Separated Hydrocarbons (PSH) contaminated

groundwater would be removed as encountered during excavation works and removal of

the underground petroleum storage system (UPSS) and would be disposed of at an

appropriately licensed facility.

Assessment of the impacts associated with soil and contamination has identified key risks and

management measures to mitigate them. Through the implementation of the mitigation

measures identified, namely the implementation of the remedial strategy on Keith Engineering

land and development and implementation of a plan for management of contamination for the

Asciano land, the residual risks for soil and contamination are considered to be low. The site will

be suitable for use as a waste transfer terminal, thereby meeting the requirements of Clause 7

of SEPP 55.

8.2 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING

INTRODUCTION 8.2.1

Development of the site for the purposes of a transfer terminal has the potential to alter the

hydrology and flood behaviour of the Proposal site. This Section summarises the assessment

that has been undertaken to identify key risks to hydrology and flooding and potential

management strategies to mitigate them. The existing hydrological and flooding conditions of

the site are identified, including the regional catchment, existing stormwater drainage, flood

storage and groundwater and water quality. Impacts of the Proposal have been identified and

include any construction impacts, development of an operational site water balance, stormwater

quantity and quality impacts and flood storage. Key issues have been identified as a result of

the assessment, including:

Alterations to hydrology on-site, flood storage capacity and discharge levels from Site

may result in increased flood levels downstream.

Release of leachate from putrescible waste to stormwater may cause pollution of surface

water.

To assess the key issues identified for hydrology and flooding, and to satisfy the DGRs this


A description of the existing surface and groundwater quality, including an assessment of

any water resources likely to be affected by the Proposal.

Operational wastewater predictions (including leachate) and measures that would be

implemented to avoid wastewater discharges, including the capture and disposal of

wastewater.

A flood study, including consideration of flooding impacts, the proposed site layout and

any changes in flood behaviour and identification of measures to minimise changes to the

flood behaviour of the site.


Page 136


The proposed stormwater management system, including the capacity of onsite detention

systems, and measures to reuse and dispose of water.

A site water balance including a detailed description of the measures to minimise the

water use at the site.

An assessment of the impacts of the Proposal on watercourses and riparian area,

groundwater sources and dependent ecosystems.

Management and mitigation measures have also been identified within the hydrology and

flooding impact assessment, which is provided as Appendix G. Construction mitigation

measures, a stormwater management strategy, onsite detention and Water Sensitive Urban

Design (WSUD) features have been identified as measures to reduce any changes to hydrology

and flooding.


The regional topography of the Banksmeadow area slopes gently downwards towards the

southwest, with steeper slopes to the north and east, ultimately falling to Botany Bay. The

followings sections outline the existing hydrology and flooding behaviour of the region and the

Proposal site.

Further detail is provided in the Stormwater Management Report (Hyder, 2013), which is

included as Appendix G to this EIS.

Description of regional catchment

The proposed Banksmeadow TT site is located within the Botany Bay catchment area, which

has a total catchment area of 1,165 km2. To the north, the catchment is bounded by the

Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour Catchments, to the west by the Hawkesbury-Nepean

Catchment and the south by the Hacking River Catchment. The Botany Bay Catchment has

approximately 2 million residents, and has a long history of human use, particularly in the Cooks

River, lower Georges River Catchment and areas of the Botany Bay foreshore (SMCMA. 2011).

The high level of urbanisation within the catchment has resulted in large areas of impervious

surfaces, connecting them directly to waterways via stormwater infrastructure. Accordingly, the

Botany Bay catchment generates approximately 292,435 megalitres (ML) of stormwater runoff

each year.

The Botany Bay catchment comprises several sub-catchments, being:

The Cooks River: located to the north of Botany Bay and draining approximately 9% of

the Botany Bay catchment area.

Georges River: located to the west, south and north of the Botany Bay catchment. The

total river catchment comprises 84% of the Botany Bay catchment area, including the

Woronora River catchment. The Georges River catchment accounts for 94% of mapped

stream reaches in the Botany Bay Catchment.

Woronora River: located to the south-east of the Botany Bay catchment and draining to

Georges River, before flowing to Botany Bay. The Woronora River comprises 21% of the

mapped stream reaches (of the 94% total for the Georges River catchment) in the Botany

Bay catchment.

Botany Foreshore: draining directly to Botany Bay and comprising 7% of the Botany Bay catchment. On the northern side of Botany Bay the catchment is drained by several sub-catchments, comprising Springvale Drain, Floodvale Drain and Foreshore Beach Drains. Both Springvale and Floodvale drains discharge stormwater to Botany Bay via Penrhyn Estuary, whereas the Foreshore Beach Drains discharge directly to Botany Bay via pipe outlets along the Northern Foreshore Beach (Lawson & Treloar, 2003).




Figure 8-25 Botany Bay Major Sub-Catchments(SMCMA. 2011)


Page 138


The Banksmeadow TT site sits within the Springvale Drain catchment, which covers an area of

241 ha. The Springvale Drain has a total length of 3.9 km, comprising of 2.5 km of closed

conduit and 1.4 km of open channel (SKP, 1992 and SKM, 1996). In 2003 it was calculated that

the impervious surface area of the Springvale Drain catchment was 111.77 ha, equating to 46%

of the total catchment area, based on aerial photography (Lawson & Treloar, 2003). The

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA) identified the Springvale

Drain catchment area as having little to no riparian vegetation and being in a moderate or

degraded condition (SMCMA. 2011).

The Springvale Drain catchment is comprised of 11 sub-catchments of which the Banksmeadow

TT site sits within the catchment identified as sub-catchment S15 (Figure 8-26). The S15

catchment discharges to the stormwater drain on McPherson Street, which flows to the main

Springvale Drain and ultimately discharges at Penhryn Estuary. S15 was identified in 2003 as

having the following characteristics.

Table 8-28 Sub-catchment attributes 2003

Total area (ha) Slope (%) Impervious (ha) Pervious (ha) Impervious

fraction (%)

14.17 0.62 2.83 11.37 20




Figure 8-26 Sub-catchments of Springvale Drain


Page 140


Existing stormwater drainage

The catchment for the Proposal site is highly constrained and very little flow from external

catchments would enter the Site. The Site is constrained by the following structures and

developments:

To the east the Site is constrained by the Botany Industrial Park, which diverts

stormwater to the south-east, away from the Site.

The Botany Goods Line to the east and north of the Site is raised and would prevent the

entry of stormwater onto the Site.

The Botany Building Recyclers located centrally to the Site is bounded by retaining walls,

which prevent the flow of stormwater onto the Proposal site, as it discharges directly into

the drainage system connecting to McPherson Street.

These constraints mean that stormwater drainage requirements on the Site are largely

independent of external flows and, therefore, dependent on the amount of rain falling directly on

the property and the Asciano Botany Site to the north-east.

Existing stormwater flows across the Proposal site are generally uncontrolled. A significant

amount of surface water is relatively stagnant, slowly escaping the Site through the boundaries

or infiltrating into the groundwater, notably within the eastern portion (Asciano land) of the site.

After periods of high rainfall ponding water has been observed in various locations across the

Site. Figure 8-27 shows the existing stormwater flows on-site.

Where rainfall volumes are sufficient to generate run-off stormwater generally flows northward

along the eastern portion of the Site, to the northern boundary of the Site, where it ponds and

gradually releases along the Botany Goods Line site boundary, to the west and south. A portion

of the rain falling on the Keith Engineering owned area of the site flows to the south and into the

stormwater drain on McPherson Street, which ultimately flows to the Springvale Drain. Surface

water on the western portion of the Site gathers at a point of low elevation along the western

boundary of the Site, where it is presently pumped out to the stormwater drainage system on

McPherson Street, although some of the runoff on Site may escape along the western

boundary.

Keith Engineering currently utilise pumps to discharge built up run-off into the Botany Bay City

Council stormwater system. These pumps are operated manually and switched on and off

based on a visual observation of the Site. There is no data detailed the amount of water that is

discharged during these scenarios. Plate 1 shows one of the pumps currently used on Keith

Engineering site to discharge stormwater to the Springvale Drain.




Plate 1 Stormwater pump on Keith Engineering site


Page 142


Figure 8-27 Existing stormwater flows




Flood Storage

As discussed above, the catchment for the Site is highly constrained by the Botany Industrial

Park, the retaining wall on the eastern boundary of the Site against the Botany Building

Recyclers and the western boundary against the Botany Goods Line. Flood modelling

undertaken for Botany Bay City Council indicates that the peak flood depth at the Site during the

1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) event is in the range of 0m – 0.5m, with peak flow

velocities below 0.6m/s (BMT WBM, 2013). Using the depth and velocity relationship (NSW

Government, 2005) flood hazard at the site is considered low. This shows that even during

‘extreme’ events the flood is relatively minor. Results also demonstrate that the flood hazard at

the site is low and during any flood event that may affect the Springvale Drain and Botany Bay

catchment any floodwater at the site would be classified as part of the ‘flood fringe’.

The flood storage for the existing conditions was investigated using 12D software to calculate

the existing flood storage capacity on Site.

Keith Engineering Land

As explained above, there is a system of pumps in place and any build-up of stormwater around

the Keith Engineering buildings is pumped away from the Site. The flood study concluded that

that stormwater run-off exits the Site in two ways. Initially water escapes to the west and flows

south, down the Botany Goods Line towards McPherson Street. If water continues to build up it

also escapes via the Keith Engineering driveway and onto McPherson Street. The Site survey

indicates that the low point near the Botany Goods Line (where water would begin to escape the

Site) is 4.65 mAHD while the low point at the driveway is 5.10 mAHD. 12D software was used to

determine the storage below this level.

Table 8-29 shows the stage volume relationship of the flood storage.

Table 8-29 Stage volume relationship of flood storage on Keith Engineering site

Flood Level (mAHD) Flood Volume (m3) Flood Surface Area (m

2)

5.10 810 3633

5.00 504 2636

4.90 278 1825

4.80 125 1257

4.70 38 550

4.60 5 138

Asciano Land

Due to the grade of the Asciano owned portion of the site there is little capacity for flood storage

in this area of the site. Following rainfall, any stormwater run-off would begin to flow

downstream, towards the rail link, before being captured by basins and redirected into the

stormwater system, before any significant ponding occurred.

Groundwater

The Site is located on the Botany Sands Aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity within the sand beds of

the Botany Sands aquifer if highly variable and is typically around 20 m/day in clean sand. The

groundwater level at the eastern portion of the Site lies at varying depths between 1.2 m and

5 m below ground level (BGL) (Douglas Partners, 2013) and the western portion of the Site at

an average depth of 0.7 m BGL (Douglas Partners, 2012). It is noted that areas that are

underlain by sand, such as the Proposal site, often experience short term fluctuations in


Page 144


groundwater levels of at least 1 m, particularly during periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall.

Tidal movements may, to a lesser extent, also have an influence on the groundwater levels at

the Site.

As noted above, the Site and the area between the Site and Botany Bay are located within the

Botany Aquifer Zone 1 (red) Groundwater Extraction Exclusion Area around the Orica site,

which incorporates the groundwater contamination associated with the Orica Voluntary

Management Plan, including remediation of contaminated groundwater. A review of the Atlas of

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (BOM, 2012) showed that there are no groundwater

dependent ecosystems hydraulically down-gradient of the Proposal site. Groundwater quality is

discussed in more detail above.

Water quality

The long history of industrial uses within the Botany Bay area has adversely impacted on the

waterways within the catchment area. For example, the Cooks River Catchment drains to

Botany Bay via Alexandra Canal, one of the most polluted urban waterways in Australia (City of

Sydney. 2012). Key contaminants of concern for water quality within the Botany Bay catchment

include total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) (SMCMA,

2011). These pollutants are attributable to the erosion of waterways resulting from increased

urban run-off (SMCMA, 2009).


Construction impacts

Construction of the Proposal would require clearing of the whole Proposal site, which has the

potential to cause erosion and sedimentation. As noted above, applying the RUSLE calculation

to the Site, the Site has been determined to pose a low potential erosion hazard (Lawson and

Treloar, 2003). However, as the area of the site that would be disturbed during construction

exceeds 2,500 m2, the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004) recommends consideration of the provision

of sediment basins to facilitate the removal of sediment form stormwater while the site is

disturbed. An assessment of the need for construction sediment basins is presented in Section

8.2.4, below.

Operational Site water balance

A water balance assessment was prepared to determine the water demand associated with

operation of the Proposal and to identify whether water demand can be offset by water

harvesting or water reuse strategies. Simply, the water balance was calculated as follows:

Water demand-water supply=net water balance

For the purposes of the water balance the demand portion of the balance was assumed to

consist of any water usage where potable water quality wouldn’t normally be. This included:

Toilet flushing.

Washdown water.

To offset these water demands rainwater harvesting was investigated and was calculated based on the transfer terminal building and office building roof areas, with a run-off coefficient of 0.95, to account for any run-off that may not reach the gutter system. Average monthly rainfall was sourced from the Randwick Racecourse weather station.

Table 8-30 provides a monthly summary of water demand and supply for non-potable water on

the Site.




Table 8-30 Monthly net water balance

Month Demand (kL) Supply (kL) Balance (kL)

Jan 71.11 420.42 349.30

Feb 64.23 465.97 401.73

Mar 71.11 518.75 447.63

Apr 68.82 443.49 374.67

May 71.11 463.34 392.23

Jun 68.82 571.90 503.08

Jul 71.11 295.90 224.79

Aug 71.11 320.86 249.75

Sep 68.82 223.11 154.29

Oct 71.11 287.44 216.33

Nov 68.82 346.84 278.02

Dec 71.11 269.94 198.83

TOTAL 837.28 4627.96 3790.65

It should also be noted that where there is a positive water balance this doesn’t guarantee

supply at every stage during the month. Rainfall variability and storage capacities would

determine whether there is a positive water balance at any given time. Figure 8-28 shows the

difference between the potential for water harvesting and water demand for the Proposal over

the course of a year.


Page 146


Figure 8-28 Water supply vs. water demand

The water balance assessment concluded that the equivalent of 40 kL of rain water storage

should be provided to accommodate the non-potable water demand for the Proposal. Tanks

would be located beneath the transfer terminal building and located according to the final layout

and the roof pitch. The individual tanks would be sized depending on what area they are

servicing and Site and operational constraints. For example, small tanks would be provided for

toilet flushing, while large tanks would be provided for water for daily washdown of the terminal.

Stormwater quantity

The majority of the Site will be paved due to the nature of the development and the intermodal

transport requirements. The building coverage and area of impervious surfaces will remain

generally unchanged within the Keith Engineering portion of the site as the terminal building will

occupy a similar location to the Keith Engineering Factory sheds. However, there is potential to

significantly increase the amount of runoff from the Site once it is developed due to an increase

in impervious surfaces on the Asciano portion of the site, and the interception of runoff that was

previously escaping the Site in an uncontrolled manner. To offset the increase in run-off onsite

detention (OSD) would be provided on the Site to mitigate the increase in flows leaving the Site.

In accordance with the Botany Bay DCP (2013), below ground detention systems are not

permissible on the Site, given the high groundwater table and the known groundwater

contamination issues in the area. Table 8-31 shows the change in pervious and impervious

surfaces at the Site as a result of the Proposal.

Table 8-31 Fraction impervious existing conditions vs. the Proposal

Element Area (ha) %

Total Site area 2.18 100

Existing conditions

Existing Vegetation (pervious) 0.44 20.2

-

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

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

kL

Month

Water Demand vs. Water Supply

Non potable water demand Rain water available for harvest




Element Area (ha) %

Existing buildings (impervious) 0.87 39.9

Existing hardstand (impervious) 0.87 39.9

Proposed development

Proposed Landscape (pervious) 0.29 13.3

Proposed building (impervious) 0.50 22.9

Proposed hardstand (impervious) 1.39 63.8

Section 8.2.4 discusses the proposed stormwater management strategy that would be

employed to mitigate impacts on stormwater flows as a result of the Proposal.

Flood storage

The Stormwater Management Report, included as Appendix G, describes the flood assessment

that was undertaken for the Proposal. Development of the Proposal would require levelling of

the Site to provide a level surface for the transfer of containers and movement of trucks. This

has the potential to reduce the flood storage levels that currently exist on Site, which in turn has

the potential to impact downstream properties. To mitigate this impact it is proposed that the

stormwater strategy would provide sufficient on site storage to offset any loss in flood storage,

discussed in Section 8.2.4.

Stormwater quality

The Proposal has the potential to have impacts on stormwater quality leaving the Site through

the introduction of contaminants, such as leachate from waste, hydrocarbons from vehicle and

machinery leaks and potential leaks from the diesel fuel tank to be located onsite. Measures to

mitigate impacts to stormwater quality are discussed in Section 8.2.4, below.

A leachate management system would be designed to maintain separation between rainfall run-

off and leachate at all times. All excess leachate from the Site would be disposed of in

accordance with legislative requirements, through either a trade waste agreement or captured

and stored in a tank for transport to the Woodlawn Eco-project site. Further details of the

proposed leachate management strategy are provided in Section 8.4.


Construction Mitigation Measures

As noted above, the area of disturbance during the construction phase of the Proposal is a

trigger to consider the need for sediment basins, in accordance with the Blue Book, during the

construction phase.

Four catchments were identified, through Site inspections and use of aerial imagery, on the Site

and assessment for the need for a sediment basin in each was conducted using the

methodology set out in the Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and the following assumptions:

A Soil Class of D was adopted due to the presence of fill material on Site.

A 5-day rainfall event was adopted as the design for the settling zone; assuming that 5

days or less would be required to achieve flocculation or settlement within the basin to

meet the discharge criteria.


Page 148


An 80th percentile design rainfall depth was adopted.

A soil erodibility factor (k) of 0.38 was adopted.

An average 3 per cent grade was adopted across each catchment, with a maximum slope

length of 80 m.14

In accordance with the Blue Book; the building of a sediment retention basin can be considered

unnecessary where the soil loss for a catchment is less than 150 m3 per year. Table 8-33

summarises the outcomes of the assessment.

Table 8-32 Calculated soil loss from catchments during construction

Catchment Catchment area (m2) Soil loss per year (m3) Sediment Basin

Required? (Y/N)

Asciano 1 7894 24 N

Asciano 2 4642 54 N

Asciano 3 3037 21 N

Keith Engineering 9859 32 N

As can be seen, none of the catchments would generate more than 150 m3 of sediment per

year. As the sum of the soil loss from each sub-catchment equates to 132m3/year it is not

necessary for sedimentation basins to be developed for construction. As discussed in Section

8.1.4, a CSWMP would be developed for the Proposal in accordance with the Blue Book

(Landcom, 2004) and would form part of the CEMP. Appropriate erosion and sediment controls

would be prescribed in this plan to control stormwater flows across the Site in a manner that

minimises erosion and sedimentation.

Should the construction contractor decide to install sediment basins as an additional control

measure, these would be located and sized in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004)

and constructed prior to commencement of Site disturbance.


Stormwater management strategy

Botany Bay City Council’s Draft Stormwater Management Technical Guidelines (Stormwater

Management Guidelines) (BBC, 2013) prescribe design criteria for stormwater works within the

Botany Bay LGA. The following design principles are applicable to the Proposal site, with regard

to the proposed stormwater management strategy:

Onsite infiltration systems are not permitted as a stormwater management system if the

groundwater level is within 1.5 mBGL or the site is contaminated; infiltration systems are

therefore not proposed for the Site.

OSD must be provided for all industrial developments where an infiltration system is not

permitted. The OSD provided storage volume shall be provided such that the piped

outflow of OSD system and bypass flow from the Proposal site does not exceed the

maximum permissible discharge allowed for the Site.

14 The grades on the Site are generally less than 1%, hence the adoption of a 3% grade represents a conservative

‘worst-case’ scenario that may eventuate during construction.




The Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) from the Site shall be designed to restrict the

discharge to 20% annual exceedance probability (AEP) event peak flow under the “State

of Nature” condition of the Site (i.e. the Site is totally grassed/turfed) for all storm events.

All stormwater runoff from the Proposal site shall be conveyed under gravity to street kerb

or by a single pipeline to Council stormwater drainage system to which runoff from the

Site naturally falls.

The proposed drainage strategy for the Site has been designed so that the maximum discharge

leaving the Site is equivalent to the 20% AEP ‘natural condition’ flow. Four catchments have

been identified within the Site and the volume of OSD that would be required to achieve the

20% AEP ‘natural condition’ OSD requirements for each catchment area has been assessed.

Table 8-33 Onsite detention volumes

Catchment OSD footprint area (m2) OSD Volume (m

3)

Asciano 1 700 430

Asciano 2 400 205

Asciano 3 100 165

Keith Engineering 200 520

Total 1320

The drainage strategy for the Proposal is to generally maintain the existing flow paths on the

Site, while providing for OSD to meet the Stormwater Management Guidelines. Figure 8-29

shows the proposed stormwater management strategy for the Site, including the proposed

location of OSD. Rain that falls and collects to the west of the rail sidings would drain through a

terraced bioretention system before entering a stormwater pipe. This would convey the water to

the northern portion of the Site and into a pit, which would then transfer the water via a pipe in a

southerly direction, towards McPherson Street. Bunding would be provided along the western

boundary of the Site to ensure that no flows from the Site would enter the Botany Goods Line.

In addition, bunding or kerbing would be installed along the western boundary of the Proposal

site to prevent stormwater from entering ARTC’s land.

A series of detention systems would be located at the northern portion of the Site. These would

capture overland flow run-off. The proposed layout of the system would ensure that large

volumes of run-off can be stored for a period of time while smaller flows are released into the

new drainage infrastructure before connecting into the Council drain in McPherson Street,

achieving the PSD.


Page 150


Figure 8-29 Proposed stormwater management strategy




Flood storage

The Stormwater Management Report, included as Appendix G, describes the flood assessment

that was undertaken for the Proposal. Sufficient storage would be provided within the Proposal

footprint to offset any loss in flood storage, as a result of the development. In order to be

conservative it was assumed that the flood storage exists below 5.10 mAHD, equating to a

volume of 810 m3. As identified above the Proposal would include the provision of

approximately 1,320 m3 of OSD. This storage volume would more than offset any losses to flood

storage as a result of the Proposal.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

Opportunities for the installation of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) measures were

considered as part of the Stormwater Management Strategy. Where practicable, these

measures have been incorporated into the proposed OSD areas to attenuate stormwater flows

and also treat run-off for gross pollutants, suspended solids and nutrients before entering the

drainage system.

It is proposed to locate a bioretention basin on the eastern side of the outgoing weighbridge and

a series of bioretention systems along the western border, on the eastern side of Botany

Building Recyclers property.

Additionally, oil and grease interceptors would be installed in all new drainage pits. This would

ensure that 95% of oils and grease is captured before entering the Council drainage system.

Summary of operational mitigation measures

Detailed design of the Proposal would provide for the following measures to minimise impacts

on hydrology and flooding:

The leachate management system would be designed to maintain separation between

rainfall run-off and leachate at all times. A minimum 20 kL self-bunded tank would be

provided for collection of leachate from the transfer terminal building and compactor area.

The compactor areas would be fully covered to limit the generation of leachate.

OSD would be provided onsite to achieve Botany Bay City Council’s requirement of 20%

AEP ‘natural condition’ detention and to offset the calculated flood storage volume of

810 m3.

WSUD measures would be included within the detailed design for the Site and would

include the provision of bioretention basins and oil and grease interceptors within the new

drainage pits.

A 40 KL tank for stormwater storage would be provided beneath the terminal building for

the purposes of washdown and toilet flushing to minimise potable water demand at the

facility.

Operational measures that would be adopted to minimise impacts on water and water quality

are:

All excess leachate from the Site would be disposed of in accordance with legislative

requirements, through either a trade waste agreement or pumped out and disposed of at

an appropriately licensed facility.

The diesel fuel tank and refuelling area would be appropriately bunded. All refuelling

would take place within this area.


Page 152


An Incident Response Plan (IRP) would be developed for the Site and would form a sub-

plan to the OEMP. The IRP would contain a ‘spill response procedure’, which is shown in

Figure 8-30

Figure 8-30 Veolia Spill Response Procedure

CONCLUSION 8.2.5

This Section has outlined the potential impacts on hydrology and flooding that may result from

the Proposal. Construction of the Proposal would require clearing of the Proposal site, which

has the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation. However, the Site has been assessed to

pose a low potential erosion hazard. There would be a minor impact on the groundwater level

during the construction of the facility due to dewatering. As discussed in Section 8.1,

construction impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation would be managed through the

development of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), including a

Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and progressive Erosion and




Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs), in accordance with the requirements of the Blue Book

(Landcom, 2004).

Flood mapping from Botany Bay City Council was reviewed which indicates that flood risk at the

Site is low and any flood waters would be classified as part of the flood fringe. The assessment

identified that the Proposal has the potential to reduce the flood storage levels on-site due to

levelling of the Site. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk and

consequences associated with the key issues are summarise below:

Hydrology on-site and discharge levels from Site: There is potential to increase the

amount of runoff from the Site once it is developed due to an increase in impervious

surface area and the interception of runoff that was previously escaping in an

uncontrolled manner. On-site detention would be provided on-site to achieve Botany City

Council’s requirement of 20% AEP ‘natural condition’ detention and offset the calculated

flood storage volume of 810 m3.

Leachate from putrescible waste: The Proposal has the potential to have an impact on

stormwater quality leaving the Site. The leachate management system would be

designed to maintain separation between rainfall run-off and leachate at all times. Further

details of the proposed leachate management strategy are provided in Section 8.4.

The area around the Site has been heavily disturbed and is a predominately industrial area.

There are no permanent water resources on the Site and groundwater quality is low due to

contamination from industrial activity in the area. Through the implementation of the mitigation

strategies identified, for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposal, the

quality of these water resources is unlikely to be reduced further by the Proposal.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on hydrology and flooding, and determined key

risks of the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified the residual risks for hydrology

and flooding are considered to be low.


Page 154


8.3 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

INTRODUCTION 8.3.1

A Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment has been prepared by Hyder Consulting to assess

the traffic and access impacts of the Proposal. The complete Traffic and Transport Impact

Assessment is included as Appendix H to this EIS.

As a result of the Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment a number key of issues that may

arise as a result of the Proposal have been identified, including:

Increased traffic volumes and frequency, including heavy vehicles, placing pressure on

intersection and road capacities within the vicinity of the Site

Reduction in road safety as a result of increased number of heavy vehicles operating on

the road networks around the Banksmeadow TT

Accidents occurring on-site as a result of light and heavy vehicles, trains, container

handlers and machinery operating within close proximity

Rail access to and from the site via external rail networks.

To address these key issues, and in accordance with the DGRs and conditions stipulated in the

ISEPP for traffic generating developments, this Section includes:

Details of the key transport routes, vehicle types proposed to access the site, the traffic

volumes likely to be generated and the likely arrival and departure times of traffic

generated by the Proposal for the construction and operational phase of the Proposal.

The cumulative impact of traffic generated by other existing and proposed developments,

including the expansion of Port Botany and the proposed Bunnings development in

Hillsdale.

An assessment of predicted impacts on road safety and the capacity of the road network

to accommodate the Proposal, including identification of potential road congestion and

parking implications.

Details to demonstrate that the Proposal will not result in adverse impacts on the

operations of the main goods rail line, including efficiency in moving waste from the Site

by rail.

Four scenarios were modelled for the traffic and transport assessment, to identify the traffic

impacts associated with the Proposal, being:

1. Existing case: this case represents the current traffic volumes on the road network and

intersection performance.

2. The Future case (no Proposal) (referred to in the TTIA as ‘The future no build with other

development case’): this case represents the estimated future traffic movements within the

vicinity of the Proposal site, accounting for background traffic growth associated with

residential, commercial, industrial and throughput traffic growth. This case also considers

the increased traffic associated with other developments in the area, including the Port

Botany Expansion and the proposed Hillsdale Bunnings development.

3. The Proposal development case (referred to in the TTIA as the ‘future build with no other

development case’): this case represents the traffic generation and impacts associated with

operation of the Banksmeadow TT proposal operating in isolation (i.e. without the additional

traffic associated with the future no build with other development case).




4. The Cumulative future case (referred to in the TTIA as the ‘future build with other

development case): this case combines the predicted traffic flows from the future no build

with other development case and the future build with no other development case to

determine the cumulative traffic impacts.

Measures to mitigate traffic impacts associated with traffic generated by the Proposal were

identified and are presented below and in Appendix H.

In addition the four modelled cases listed above, the impact assessment has determined

potential impacts from construction traffic and potential impacts on public transport routes. A

road safety inspection was also undertaken to identify opportunities to improve road safety

conditions within the vicinity of the site. Rail access arrangements and strategies to minimise

impacts on the main goods line and broader rail network are identified and discussed.

Traffic and access management and mitigation measures, including road safety, have been

identified in Section 8.3.4.

EXISTING TRAFFIC 8.3.2

The land uses immediately surrounding the Proposal site have a strong influence on the traffic

that is generated on the surrounding road network. These land uses, including Port Botany and

the Sydney Airport precinct, generate a substantial volume of local trips by trucks and private

vehicles. The Port Botany Precinct also generates all of the train movements along the Botany

Goods Railway Line. These are mostly container movements to and from hinterland and various

intermodal terminals.

The following sections describe the existing road network surrounding the Site, existing traffic

volumes on the network and predicted traffic volume increase and road network performance in

the future, without the Banksmeadow TT.

Road network

Beauchamp Road

Beauchamp Road is a four lane undivided road that extends from Bunnerong Road in the east,

and Botany Road in the south. The section of Beauchamp Road to the south-west of Denison

Street is classified as Main Road (MR) 616 with RMS having delegated authority to manage and

maintain this portion of the route. The section to the north-east of Denison Street is classified as

a Regional Road (7340) such that the relevant local government is the delegated roads

authority. The Randwick/ Botany Bay Local Government Area (LGA) boundary runs along the

centre of this road between Bunnerong Road and Perry Street. As such, for the section

classified as a regional road, the northern side of the road falls in Botany Bay City Council’s

jurisdiction, and the southern side falls in Randwick City Council’s jurisdiction.

The section of Beauchamp Road between Denison Street and Botany Road has a major

collector road/ sub-arterial road function. It is a critical route providing connectivity between the

Port Botany Precinct and Botany Road- Foreshore Road in the south, and the light industrial

and residential areas of Pagewood, Hillsdale, Mascot, Matraville and Eastlakes. The route is

signposted as a 60km/h speed zone with a 40km/h school zone between Flack Avenue and

Bunnerong Road. This road also operates as a public bus route.

Denison Street

Denison Street is a four-lane undivided road linking Wentworth Avenue in the north to

Beauchamp Road in the south. It is classified as MR616 and RMS have delegated authority to

manage and maintain this route.


Page 156


This sub-arterial road provides inter-regional connectivity between the Pagewood, Matraville

and Sydney Airport precincts with the Port Botany Precinct. It is also a critical access route for

the residential and heavy industry land uses adjacent to this road including Qenos and Orica on

the western side of this route, and the Hillsdale precinct on the eastern side of the route.

This route is signposted as a 60km/h speed zone.

Botany Bay – Foreshore Road

Botany Road commences from Bunnerong Road at its eastern end and extends westward

towards Botany Bay. This is classified as MR170 and falls under the delegated responsibility of

RMS. Between Bunnerong Road and the Penrhyn Road/ Foreshore Road intersection, the route

has a six-lane divided road configuration with indented turning lanes at the signalised

intersections with Bumborah Point Road, Gate 2 container holding yard, McCauley Street,

Beauchamp Road, and Penrhyn Road/Foreshore Road. The section of Botany Road between

Bunnerong Road and Penrhyn Road/ Foreshore Road is a critical access route for the existing

container terminals and bulk liquid storage within the Port Botany Precinct.

Foreshore Road is the western extension of Botany Road to the west of Penrhyn Road. This is

a controlled access route functioning primarily as a high volume link between the Port Botany

Precinct and General Holmes Drive (and hence the Sydney Orbital network). As such, this is a

four-lane divided road with a high-speed alignment and very few access points.

The entire Botany Road – Foreshore Road route between Bunnerong Road and General

Holmes Drive is signposted as a 70km/h speed zone.

Perry Street

Perry Street is an east-west local road extending from Bunnerong Road at its eastern end to

Beauchamp Road at its western end. The road commences as a divided road configuration at

its eastern end, and then transitions to an undivided single carriageway road for the western

portion. This road is wholly contained in the Randwick LGA and hence is managed and

maintained by Randwick City Council.

Perry Street provides access to the residential and light industrial land uses either side of the

road and has a sign-posted speed limit of 60km/h.

Bunnerong Road

Bunnerong Road is classified as MR171 and falls under the delegated care and control of RMS.

The road extends from La Perouse in the south to Kingsford in the north; however the section of

road that is relevant to the Proposal is located between Botany Road and Beauchamp Road.

Within this section, Bunnerong Road has a divided road configuration with two to three travel

lanes per direction. Parking is allowed in the kerb side lane and indented turning lanes are

provided at key intersections.

McPherson Street

McPherson Street is a local no-through road, stemming from Beauchamp Road. It provides

access to a number of industrial land uses, including the Goodman Business Park at 2-12

Beauchamp Road, and Botany Building Recyclers. This road mostly falls under the care and

jurisdiction of Botany Bay City Council, with the exception of a small portion of land at the

eastern end of the road which falls under the Randwick LGA.

As a no-through road, almost all the traffic generated by land uses enter and egress the road

from the Beauchamp Road/ McPherson Street intersection. The exception is the portion of

traffic that may enter the Goodman Business Park via the driveways on McPherson Street and

then leave the premises via the alternative gates on Beauchamp Road.




This road is not signposted with a speed limit and as such defaults to the general urban speed

limit of 50km/h.

Wentworth Avenue

Wentworth Avenue is classified as MR344 and extends from Bunnerong Road at its eastern

end, to Botany Road, at its western end. It functions as an arterial road providing a regional link

between Maroubra, Pagewood and Eastgardens at its eastern end, and Mascot, the Sydney

Airport Precinct, and the Sydney Orbital network at its western end. Of relevance to the

proposed development, this route would be a critical road access route from the north and west.

It provides connectivity to General Holmes Drive for access to the south-western suburbs of

Sydney, as well as access to Southern Cross Drive for access to the northern and inner city

suburbs.

This road has a divided road configuration with two to three lanes per direction. The road is

signposted as a 70km/h and 60km/h speed zone to the east and west of Dransfield Avenue

respectively.

Figure 8-31 shows the local road network, as described above.


Page 158


Figure 8-31 Road network




Existing case

Existing traffic volumes

The existing traffic conditions were identified using:

Road and Maritime Services (RMS) surveys based on counting stations in the road

network around the Proposed Development.

The Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic Signal (SCATS) system. The SCATS system

records the number of vehicles passing through signalised intersections, providing traffic

count data.

The traffic volumes based on 2005 RMS survey data are presented in Table 8-34. The annual

trends at each traffic counting location were used to determine the most likely growth scenario

for the 2013 present day case.

Table 8-34 Recorded and projected traffic volumes based on RMS counting stations (RMS, 2005)

Station

no.

Traffic Counting Location 2005 AADT 2013 projected

AADT

16.089 Beauchamp Road, north of Botany Road. 20,848 23,000

16.012 Botany Road, east of Beauchamp Road. 24,266 27,500

16.013 Botany Road, west of Beauchamp Road. 39,342 43,500

16.088*15

Foreshore Road, between General Holmes

Drive and Botany Road.

33,454 39,000

16.031* Wentworth Avenue, west of Bunnerong

Road

18,862 23,000

16.033 Wentworth Avenue, east of Page Street. 33,054 36,000

13.014 Bunnerong Road, north of Beauchamp

Road.

19,153 19,000

The traffic count data (RMS, 2013) included turning movement counts for the AM and PM peak

periods for the following signalised intersections:

Beauchamp Road/ Perry Street/ Site access

Beauchamp Road/ Denison Street

Botany Road/ Beauchamp Road.

Figure 8-32 shows the signalised intersections that have been assessed to determine traffic

impacts associated with the Proposal.

15 Sites marked with (*) are measured in vehicles per day. Sites not marked are in axle pairs per day.


Page 160 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-32 Key intersections



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Road network performance – existing case

The existing traffic volumes and movements for the AM and PM peak periods were built into

traffic modelling software (SIDRA) to serve as the existing base case models and a benchmark

for comparing the likely future scenarios. The SIDRA model measures traffic performance which

can be described using two key traffic parameters:

1 Level of service (LoS): at signalised and roundabout intersections this relates to the

average intersection delay (seconds per vehicle), and at sign controlled intersections

(give way and stop) the LoS is based on the average delay (seconds per vehicle) for the

worst movement. The following table summarises the intersection LoS criteria.

Table 8-35 Level of Service Criteria

Level of

Service

Average Delay

(seconds per

vehicle)

Traffic Signals, Roundabout Give Way and Stop Signs

A Less than 14 Good operation Good operation

B 15 to 28 Good with acceptable delays

and spare capacity

Acceptable delays and spare

capacity

C 29 to 42 Satisfactory Satisfactory, but accident study

required

D 43 to 56 Operating near capacity Near capacity and accident

study required

E 57 to 70 At capacity.

At signals, incidents will cause

excessive delays.

Roundabouts require other

control mode

At capacity; requires other

control mode

F Greater than 71 Unsatisfactory with excessive

queuing

Unsatisfactory with excessive

queuing; requires other control

mode

Source: RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002).

2 Average delay: is the difference between interrupted and uninterrupted travel times

through the intersection and is measured in seconds per vehicle. The delays include

queued vehicles decelerating and accelerating to and/or from stop, as well as delays

experienced by all vehicles negotiating the intersection. At signalised and roundabout

intersections, the average intersection delay is usually reported and is taken as the

weighted average delay by summing the product of the individual movement traffic

volumes and their corresponding calculated delays and dividing these by the total number

of vehicles entering the intersection. At sign controlled intersections, the average delay

for the worst movement is usually reported.

For the purpose of assessing potential traffic impacts, two time periods were modelled for road

network performance. The periods were selected based on the peak traffic generation hours for

the Clyde TT and the Port Botany Resource Recovery Centre, and the overlap with peak

commuter periods, being:

AM assessment period: 0745- 0845h

PM assessment period: 1445-1545h

The SIDRA outputs for the existing case are presented in Table 8-36, followed by a short

description regarding the intersection performance for the existing case.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-36 Existing case SIDRA model outputs

Intersection Time LoS Average delay

(seconds/

vehicle)

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St AM A 13.6

PM A 12.8

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St AM C 35.6

PM F 121.8

Botany Rd/ Beauchamp Rd AM B 17.9

PM B 17.9

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St: the intersection is currently performing satisfactorily with an

average LoS of A and an average delay of 12-14 seconds per vehicle.

As noted above, it has been assumed that this intersection is currently operating as an

intersection with only three active legs as the Site has been largely unused and the

recent use of the Site by Patricks Stevedoring is temporary, continuing for 6 months, and

ceasing prior to commencement of construction of the Proposal.

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St: the right-turn movement from Denison Street to

Beauchamp Road is currently exhibiting a LoS of C in the AM peak and F in the PM peak,

with modelled delays between 60-190 seconds per vehicle. A key factor in this result is

the relatively high volume of eastbound through vehicles on Beauchamp Road.

Botany Rd/ Beauchamp Rd: the intersection is currently performing satisfactorily with an

average LoS of B or better for all approaches and an average delay less than 20 seconds

per vehicle.

Future case (no Proposal)

Following a five-year ramp up period, the Proposal is expected to be operating at full capacity in

2020. An assessment was undertaken to determine the impacts associated with key land use

changes and background traffic growth on the road network in the year 2020, excluding traffic

associated with operation of the Proposal.

An assessment was undertaken of proposed and approved developments within the vicinity of

the Proposal, to identify the future traffic volumes and intersection performance within the local

road network, referred to as the ‘Future case (no Proposal)’. The purpose of the Future case (no

Proposal) is to assess the traffic impact of other key land uses without the added traffic

generation of the Proposal for the period when the Proposal would reach its peak operating

capacity. The Future case (no Proposal) accounts for traffic volume increases due to the

following:

Growth in background traffic: this would account for the general growth across the road

network as a result of general population, employment and demographic changes.

Growth in traffic due to specific land use changes: proposed land use changes

around the Proposal will also result in changes to traffic generation. In particular, the

following land use changes are regarded as significant and would lead to substantial

changes in traffic generation and distribution:

- The Port Botany Expansion Project, including the third container terminal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

- The proposed Bunnings Warehouse on Denison Street to the south of Smith Street.

Table 8-37 summarises the predicted growth in vehicle numbers due to background growth and

key land use changes at the key intersections to 2020.

Table 8-37 Predicted traffic growth at key intersections to 2020

Intersection Contributor AM Peak

Contribution

Total AM PM Peak

Contribution

Total PM

Beauchamp

Road/Perry Street/

Site Access

Background Growth 72 119 71 138

Port Botany

Expansion

9 9

Bunnings Hillsdale 38 58

Beauchamp Road /

Denison Street


Port Botany

Expansion

9 6


Botany Road /

Beauchamp Road


Port Botany

Expansion

-9 -9


Summary of Future Traffic Volumes - Future case (no Proposal)

Table 8-38 summarises the future vehicle numbers in the Future case (no Proposal) in the AM

and PM peak periods in comparison with existing traffic numbers.

Table 8-38 Future case (no Proposal) versus Existing case

Intersection Period Existing Case Future case (no

Proposal)

Beauchamp Road/Perry

Street/ Site Access

AM Peak 2029 2148

PM Peak 1970 2108

Beauchamp Road /

Denison Street

AM Peak 1915 2093

PM Peak 1829 2032

Botany Road /

Beauchamp Road

AM Peak 2856 3060

PM Peak 2899 3159

Road network performance – Future case (no Proposal)

The forecast traffic volumes due to the Future case (no Proposal) for the AM and PM peak periods were put into SIDRA model to determine the road network performance. The results of this modelling are presented in

Table 8-39 with a brief explanation provided below.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-39 Future case (no Proposal) SIDRA model outputs


(seconds/ vehicle)

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St AM B 14.8

PM A 12.9

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St AM F 104.3

PM F 415.1


PM B 19.5

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St: The model outputs indicate that under this scenario, this

intersection would continue to perform satisfactorily.

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St: the model results indicate that this intersection is likely to

fail in the AM and PM peak periods for this scenario. This is indicated by the modelled

LoS of F, and the modelled delays between 100-420 seconds/ vehicle (increasing from

60-190 seconds per vehicle). The extended average delay would be experienced as a

result of traffic volumes generated by background traffic growth and other known

developments.

Botany Rd/ Beauchamp Rd: the results indicate that this intersection will perform

satisfactorily in the AM and PM peak periods of this scenario. There are only marginal

changes in modelled outputs of this table compared with the Existing case.

Public transport

The Site is located on Beauchamp Road, and is currently serviced by the 309 /X09 / L09 bus

route, which travels between Port Botany and the City via the suburbs of Matraville,

Banksmeadow, Botany and Mascot, Alexandria, Waterloo, Redfern, Darlinghurst and Sydney.

During weekdays these buses depart every 20 to 45 minutes. On weekends the service runs

every 30 to 60 minutes.


Construction traffic impacts

The construction phase of the Proposal is anticipated to extend from January 2015 to November

201516

and is likely to generate the following traffic movements:

Site preparation

Site establishment – 10 truck movements/ day over a two-week period.

Demolition – 60 truck movements/ day over an 18-week period.

16 Subject to approval process as outlined in Table 3-9



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Clearing and grubbing – 60 truck movements/ day over a four-day period.

Contamination removal – 4 truck movements.

Earthworks, drainage and utilities

Bulk earthworks - 80 truck movements/ day over a 12-week period.

Stormwater drainage – 100 truck movements/day over a two-week period.

Utilities – 16 truck movements/ day over a two-week period.

Pavement and terminal building construction

Pavement – 60 truck movements/ day over a four-week period.

Building slab – 40 truck movements/ day over a four-week period.

Construction of transfer terminal – 14 truck movements/ day over a 12-week period.

Rail construction

Rail link – 20 truck movements/ day over an eight-week period.

It should be noted that most of these construction items would not occur simultaneously. The

items with the most potential overlap would be the demolition and clearing/grubbing activities.

This could generate up to 60 trucks to and from site per day (i.e. 120 truck movements) if both

activities peak at the same time. As such, this has been adopted as the highest-case traffic

generation potential of the Site during the construction phase.

Assuming a 10-hour construction window per day, the 120 truck movements would equate to 12

truck movements per hour. This would consist of six inbound trucks and six outbound trucks. If

evenly distributed by time, this would equate to one inbound truck and one outbound truck every

10 minutes.

A 50%/50% distributional split was assumed for the construction truck traffic. The relatively low

number of truck movements generated would have a marginal impact on existing traffic volumes

and intersection performance. The low numbers of truck movements would be easily absorbed

into the existing road network, especially if these were evenly distributed by time.

Due to the low hourly number of vehicles accessing the site during the construction phase,

construction of the Proposal would not impact on the operation of Bus Route 309 / L09 / X09

along Beauchamp Road.

Operational traffic impacts

The Banksmeadow TT is expected to commence operations in 2015 and experience a five-year

ramp up period to 2020, when it would be operating at peak levels. The ‘Future case (no

Proposal)’ was developed to determine what the road network performance in 2020, when the

Proposal is operation at full capacity, would be, if the Proposal did not proceed and is presented

in Section 8.3.2, above. The following assessments were undertaken to determine the impacts

of the Proposal on the key intersections:

Proposal development case

Cumulative future case.

The results are compared to the ‘Future case (no Proposal)’, discussed above, to determine the

impacts of the Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Proposal development case

The Proposal development case aims to test the relative impact of the proposed Banksmeadow

TT compared with the existing traffic conditions without the cumulative impact of other

developments. Details of the traffic volume build-up for this scenario are as follows:

Existing traffic volumes

No background traffic growth

No additional traffic due to other developments

Includes the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Banksmeadow TT operating

at peak capacity. Note that this traffic was simply added to the existing traffic volumes.

Access routes to Site

The operation of the Proposal would rely on nominated truck access routes for the

transportation of inbound and outbound waste. These are based on appropriate routes

equipped to accommodate such heavy vehicle movements and determined by gazetted truck

access restrictions based on load, length and vertical clearance, as well as Proposal-specific

restrictions, including Veolia’s commitment that Perry Street would not be used as a heavy

vehicle access or egress route to/from the Proposal site.

Perry Street

In response to concerns identified through ongoing consultation with the community, this route

would not be used as a truck route to or from the proposed Banksmeadow TT. In this regard,

other roads would be designated for access and egress from the Site.

Measures to prevent waste trucks using Perry Street to access the Site are discussed in Section

8.3.4, below.

Beauchamp Road

Beauchamp Road has been identified as a critical access route to the proposed development,

both in providing direct access from the Beauchamp Road/Perry Street signalised intersection,

as well as access to the Site access via McPherson Street.

Denison Street

Denison Street would act as a critical road access and egress route from the Banksmeadow

Transfer Terminal from and to the north.

Botany Road – Foreshore Drive

Botany Road – Foreshore Drive would be a critical road access and egress route from the

Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal from and to the south. This road would provide access to

General Holmes Drive and the Sydney Orbital network.

Figure 8-33 shows the access routes for waste transportation to the Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-33 Proposed access routes



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Trip distribution

The following assumptions were made in distributing the trips associated with the operational

phase of the Proposal:

Based on potential origins of waste to be received at the facility, an 80%/ 20% directional

split has been assumed for vehicles approaching from the south and north respectively.

At the Botany Road/ Beauchamp Road intersection, 80% of the truck traffic generated by

the Site and using this intersection was assumed to be generated by origins/ destinations

to the west. The other 20% would be generated by origins/ destinations to the east.

Empty trucks on outbound journeys are assumed to return to their origin point and vice

versa.

In the case of transport of consolidated non-putrescible waste, all semi-trailers would be

loaded and would head towards Camellia via Foreshore Road to access the Sydney

Orbital network.

Proposal operational trip generation

Traffic generated by the Proposal would be associated with the following activities on-site:

Putrescible waste

Non-putrescible waste

Transport of consolidated non-putrescible waste

Staff movements.

The putrescible and non-putrescible waste would have differing transport chain logistics, and

are as such presented separately.

As discussed in Section 3.6, the Proposal would not operate at maximum capacity from 2015,

but would undergo a five year ramp up, with the putrescible waste throughput increasing by

approximately 50,000 tpa each year of operation, before reaching the maximum operational

capacity of 400,000 tpa. It is envisaged that non-putrescible waste management operations

would commence at the site in 2017. Traffic impacts associated with the Proposal, and

discussed below, have been assessed for 2020, when the Proposal would reach full operational

capacity.

Putrescible waste

Table 8-40 provides a summary of the inbound and outbound transport movements for

putrescible waste.

Table 8-40 Traffic and transport generation associated with putrescible waste

Element Volume

Annual tonnage 400,000 tonnes

Weekly tonnage (t) 7,700 tonnes

Days per week of operation 6.5 days

Truck payload (t) 5.5 tonnes/ truck

Number of inbound loaded trucks per day (various source locations to

Banksmeadow)

215

Number of outbound empty trucks/day (Banksmeadow to various destination

points)

215



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Element Volume

Total truck movements per day 430

Train payload (t)

Based on 31.5 t/container and 42 containers per train.

1,325 tonnes/ train

Total number of outbound loaded trains per year (to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site)

300 trains

Total number of inbound (empty container) trains (from the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site)

300 trains

Total number of trains per week (52-week operation) 6 trains/ week/ direction

To determine the hourly distribution of inbound and outbound putrescible waste collection

trucks, the 24-hour traffic profile of the Clyde TT was analysed. The relative proportion of daily

truck movements that occur during the AM and PM periods assessed in this report were 6% and

2.4% respectively17

. Although the daily traffic profile peaks at 11.8% between 0900-1000 h, this

would be when the commuter peak period is over and the road network would no longer be

under peak traffic conditions.

When applying the hourly distribution data for the Clyde TT to the forecast daily truck trips for

Banksmeadow TT, the outcome is:

13 trucks in and out in the AM assessment period.

6 trucks in and out in the PM assessment period.


Table 8-41 provides a summary of the inbound and outbound transport logistics for non-

putrescible waste.

Table 8-41 Traffic and transport generation associated with non-putrescible waste

Element Incoming waste

collection

Outgoing consolidated


Annual tonnage 100,000 tonnes 100,000 tonnes

Weekly tonnage (t) 1,930 tonnes 1,930 tonnes

Days per week of operation 5.5 days 5.5 days

Truck payload (t) 2.5 tonnes/ truck 22 tonnes/ truck

Number of inbound loaded trucks per day

(various source locations to Banksmeadow)

140 -

Number of outbound empty trucks/day (from

Banksmeadow to various source/ destination

locations)

140 -

17 The AM and PM assessment periods used in this report are 0745-0845 h and 1445-1545 h, respectively. As the hourly

traffic profile at Clyde Transfer Terminal was broken down by whole hour periods, the 0800-0900 h AM peak period was

regarded as being representative of the 0745-0845 h period, with the PM peak of 1500-1600 h being representative of

the 1445-1545 h period.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Element Incoming waste

collection

Outgoing consolidated


Number of inbound unloaded trucks from

Camellia

- 16

Number of outbound loaded trucks to Camellia - 16

Total truck movements per day 280 32

Incoming non-putrescible waste

To determine the hourly distribution of non-putrescible waste collection trucks, the traffic profile

of the Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility was analysed. The relative proportion of daily

truck movements that occur during the AM and PM periods were 7.2% and 5.7%, respectively. It

should be noted that although the daily traffic profile peaks at 13.5% between 1300-1400 h, this

does not coincide with any of the commuter peak periods.

When applying the hourly distribution data for the Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility to the

forecast daily incoming waste collection truck trips for Banksmeadow, the outcome is:

11 trucks in and out in the AM assessment period.

8 trucks in and out in the PM assessment period.

For the purposes of the traffic capacity assessment, inbound non-putrescible trucks are

assumed to enter and egress from the Site via the Beauchamp Road/ Perry Street/ Site Access

intersection.

Transport of consolidated non-putrescible waste

Outgoing consolidated non-putrescible waste would be transported to the proposed Camellia

Recycling Centre in semi-trailers. These movements would be evenly distributed throughout the

day. For a conservative analysis, it was assumed that these truck movements would be

distributed throughout a 12 hour window. When applying this to the consolidated non-

putrescible movements, this equates to an average of two trucks in and out (i.e. four truck

movements) per hour. As such, four truck movements were included in the peak AM and PM

assessment periods.

All truck movements associated with the transportation of consolidated non-putrescible waste

would be via the McPherson Street access to the Site.

Staff movements

The Banksmeadow TT would require up to 25 staff on-site during the day-shift and seven staff

on-site during the night shift. This assessment assumes that all workers would travel to work by

private car, thus accounting for the maximum possible trips.

A major advantage from a traffic impact perspective is the scheduled shift times for the

Banksmeadow TT, which are as follows:

Day-shifts: commence at 0000 h or 0300 h and end between 1100-1400 h

Night-shifts: commence 1100-1300 h and end between 1900-2400 h.

As none of the shift changes occur during the AM and PM assessment periods of 0745-0845h

and 1445-1545h, respectively, no trips were added to the models for staff movements.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Summary of Traffic Volumes – Proposal development case

Once operating at full capacity the Proposal would be expected to require up to 215 trucks per

day for the delivery of putrescible waste and up to 140 trucks per day for the delivery of non-

putrescible. The transfer of putrescible waste from the facility would by via rail, requiring one

train per day, and the transfer of non-putrescible waste from the facility would be expected to

require up to 16 trucks per day. Table 8-42 summarises the future vehicle numbers in the

Proposal development case in the AM and PM peak periods in comparison with existing traffic

numbers.

Table 8-42 Proposal development case versus Existing case

Intersection Period Existing Case Proposal development

case

Beauchamp Road/Perry

Street/ Site Access

AM Peak 2029 2077

PM Peak 1970 1998

Beauchamp Road /

Denison Street

AM Peak 1915 1925

PM Peak 1829 1835

Botany Road /

Beauchamp Road

AM Peak 2856 2898

PM Peak 2899 2925

Road network performance - Proposal development case

SIDRA models were prepared to assess the likely traffic impacts associated with the Proposal

development case. The total traffic volumes from these three figures were adopted as the input

volumes for the SIDRA model, with the outputs presented in Table 8-43.

Table 8-43 Build with no other development case SIDRA model outputs

Intersection Time Proposal

development

case

LoS Average delay

(seconds/ vehicle)

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St/

Site Access

AM 2077 D 48.5

PM 1998 B 26.5

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St AM 1925 C 38.0

PM 1835 F 130.4

Botany Rd/ Beauchamp Rd AM 2898 B 18.2

PM 2925 B 18.6

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St/ Site Access: the most significant change between the Existing case

model (Table 8-36) and the Proposal development case (Table 8-43) is that the latter case

would have a fourth leg to the intersection, being the main Site entrance (Site Access). The

introduction of the site access to the intersection would require signal phasing adjustments to

accommodate the traffic from the Site Access as well. Under the existing scenario, the right-turn

movement from Perry Street would be un-opposed and would have substantially higher capacity



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

compared to this scenario. Under this scenario, the same traffic would need to filter through the

left turning traffic from the Site Access.

The drop in performance of the Beauchamp Road southbound approach is a result of the

increased delays and hence queuing for the right-turn movement into Perry Street. This then

affects the performance of the northbound through movement as this traffic shares a common

lane with the right-turning traffic.

This modelling indicates that some mitigation measures would be required to restore capacity at

this intersection. To address the identified capacity shortfalls under this scenario, a modified

intersection layout was tested using SIDRA. This intersection included the following capacity

upgrades:

Provision of an indented left-turn lane in the Beauchamp Road South approach to the

intersection (nominal length of 60 m adopted in the model).

Banning of the through movements from the Perry Street and Site Access approaches.

The proposed mitigation measures would also provide access for future land use development

proposals on the Asciano land to the immediate north of the Proposal site.

The SIDRA modelling indicates that the proposed improvements would significantly reduce

queuing and delays in the Perry Street and Beauchamp Road southbound approaches to the

intersection. The LoS would also be restored back to a B. As such, the proposed intersection

improvements would be effective in mitigating the traffic impacts of the Proposal.

The modelled results indicate that, without the implementation of mitigation measures, traffic

associated with the Proposal would impact on the route times of Bus Route 309 / L09 / X09

along Beauchamp Road. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified would

restore the function of this intersection to its current operating capacity; hence impacts on the

service are not predicted.

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St: model outputs indicated that the Proposal in isolation would only

not result in a change to the intersection LoS, with only marginal impacts to the intersection. The

two movements that the Proposal would be contributing to are the left turn into, and the right

turn movement out of, Denison Street. Based on a traffic volume increase as a result of the

Proposal, the modelling indicates that this intersection is unlikely to require mitigation measures

as a direct result of the Proposal.

Botany Road/ Beauchamp Rd: there would only be marginal changes to the performance of

this intersection. This is reflected in the small changes to average delay and queue lengths.

Similar to the Existing case, the modelled LoS for the intersection would remain at B. In this

respect the Proposal in isolation is unlikely to have major impacts on this intersection, and no

mitigation measures are required as a direct result of the Proposal.

Cumulative future case

The ‘Cumulative future case’ considers the cumulative impact of the Proposal along with

background traffic growth and the anticipated growth in traffic due to major land use changes in

2020,when the Proposal would be operating at full capacity.

Forecast traffic volumes: Cumulative future case

The Cumulative future case accounted for traffic volume increases due to the following:

The growth in background traffic.

Growth in traffic due to major land use changes surrounding the Proposal (Port Botany

Expansion Project and Bunnings development).



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Traffic generated by the operational phase of the Proposal at full capacity.

Table 8-44 shows the predicted vehicles passing through the modelled intersections during the

peak hour for the AM and PM peaks under the Cumulative future case.

Table 8-44 Intersection vehicle numbers in AM and PM peaks

Intersection Period Cumulative future case

Beauchamp Road/Perry Street/ Site Access AM Peak 2196

PM Peak 2136

Beauchamp Road / Denison Street AM Peak 2103

PM Peak 2038

Botany Road / Beauchamp Road AM Peak 3102

PM Peak 3185

Road network performance: Cumulative future case

The forecast traffic volumes due to the build with other development case for the AM and PM

peak periods were inputted into SIDRA model, with the results being presented in Table 8-45.

Table 8-45 Cumulative future case SIDRA model outputs


(seconds/

vehicle)

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St/ Site

Access

AM B 20.0

PM B 18.1

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St AM F 122.8

PM F 428.2


PM B 19.8

Beauchamp Rd/ Perry St: the modelling for this scenario includes the proposed mitigation

measures for accommodating the additional traffic generated by the Proposal which includes:


intersection (nominal length of 60 m adopted in the model).


SIDRA results indicate that the proposed mitigation measures would also be effective in

accommodating all traffic under the Cumulative future case. This is demonstrated with modelled

LoS of B for both AM and PM periods and minor changes to average delays and queue lengths.

The modelled results indicate that, without the implementation of mitigation measures, traffic

associated with the Proposal and other development within the area would impact on the route

times of Bus Route 309 / L09 / X09 along Beauchamp Road. The implementation of the



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

mitigation measures identified would restore the function of this intersection to its current

operating capacity; hence impacts on the service are not predicted.

Beauchamp Rd/ Denison St: the results indicate that this intersection is likely to perform poorly

under the Cumulative future case, as shown by the poor LoS of F for both AM and PM peaks

and increased average delays. Analysis of the SIDRA results of each of the cases (Existing,

Proposal development case, Future case (no Proposal), and Cumulative future case) indicates

the decline in these parameters is attributable to other developments and the growth in

background traffic.

Based on this assessment, no mitigation measures are proposed for the intersection due to the

marginal impact that the Proposal traffic, in isolation, would have on the intersection. As noted

above, the Proposal traffic would only have marginal impacts to the intersection and would not

require mitigation measures as a direct result of the Proposal alone.

Botany Rd/ Beauchamp Rd: The traffic model results indicate that there are likely to be

marginal changes to traffic performance in the other scenarios. The LoS remains at B with

average delays less than 21 seconds per vehicle. This indicates that this intersection would

have sufficient capacity to absorb the additional traffic generated by the Proposal, other major

land use changes, and the growth in background traffic. No mitigation measures are therefore

proposed for this intersection.

Summary of modelling results

Table 8-46 summarises the modelled results for all vehicles through the key intersection in the

four cases that have been modelled.

Table 8-46 Summary of modelled intersection results

Intersection Period Existing Case Future case (no

Proposal)

Proposal

development case

Cumulative future

case

Traffic

count

LoS Traffic

count

LoS Traffic

count

LoS Traffic

count

LoS

Beauchamp

Road/Perry

Street/ Site

Access

AM Peak 2029 A 2148 B 2077 D 2196* B

PM Peak 1970 A 2108 A 1998 B 2136 B

Beauchamp

Road /

Denison

Street

AM Peak 1915 C 2093 F 1925 C 2103 F

PM Peak 1829 F 2032 F 1835 F 2038 F

Botany Road

/ Beauchamp

Road

AM Peak 2856 B 3060 B 2898 B 3102 B

PM Peak 2899 B 3159 B 2925 B 3185 B

*Modelling includes mitigation measures

As can be seen, on its own, the Proposal would result in a decrease in the level of service at the

Beauchamp Road / Perry Street / Site Access intersection. However, the modelling has shown

that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures at the Beauchamp Road / Perry Street

/ Site Access intersection would restore the level of service at the intersection to B, under the

Cumulative future case, which is the same level of service that the intersection would be

predicted to operate at under the Future case (no Proposal).



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

A conceptual plan of the proposed upgrade to the Beauchamp Road / Perry Street / Site Access

intersection is shown in Figure 8-36, below. These plans would be progressed in consultation

with Roads and Maritime, Randwick City Council and Botany Bay City Council, through the

Roads and Maritime Works Authorisation Deed process, discussed in more detail below.

Site operational traffic

All waste transport vehicles entering the facility would enter the site via the incoming

weighbridge. The weighbridge operator would be responsible for recording all waste details and

for directing putrescible and non-putrescible waste streams to the correct section of the terminal

building for processing. If a non-conforming load is identified, the vehicle would be directed to

an appropriate disposal facility.

Vehicle accessing the putrescible waste area of the transfer terminal building would drive in via

the entry door on the north-east corner of the building. The vehicles would then back up to the

northern or western wall and deposit their load, before exiting via the same entry, on the

alternate side. Vehicles accessing the non-putrescible area would enter the building through the

southern-most entry door on the eastern wall of the building, before tipping their load onto the

tipping floor and exiting the building through the same doorway. All waste vehicles exiting the

site would pass over the outgoing weighbridge.

Semi-trailers, transporting the consolidated non-putrescible waste to the recycling and resource

recovery centres would access the site via the western-most driveway on McPherson Street.

The semitrailers would make a right hand turn into the site, traversing the driveway area that

fronts onto McPherson Street, before reversing into the weighbridge area on the western side of

the transfer terminal building. The semi-trailers would exit the Proposal site via the same

driveway, making a left-hand turn onto McPherson Street. Employee and visitors would also use

McPherson Street to access the site; however they would use the eastern driveway to access

the parking provided adjacent to and under the transfer terminal building. Twenty three car

parking spaces would be located beneath the terminal building to provide for staff and visitor

parking.

Detailed plans of the proposed layout of the internal road network and parking on site in are

included on the site plans in Appendix B to this EIS.

Vehicle types

A range of waste vehicle types would deliver waste to the Proposal site, with the majority of

vehicles delivering putrescible waste being either front lift or rear lift trucks.

Front lift trucks, an example of which is shown in Figure 8-34, can lift bins with a capacity of up

to 4.5 m3 and range in length between approximately 9 m and 11 m and a turning circle of

approximately 23 m. Rear lift trucks, an example of which is provided in Figure 8-35, generally

have capacity to transport between 6 m3 and 19 m

3 of waste. Rear lift trucks may have a height

up to 3.3 m, a length up to 10.1 m and turning circle of approximately 15 m.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-34 Front lift truck

Figure 8-35 Rear lift truck

Road safety assessment

In May 2013 a number of Site inspections were carried out on roads surrounding the proposed

development in order to undertake a high level assessment of road safety. The objective of

these inspections was to:

Identify existing road safety issues that may affect the operation and transport

requirements of the Banksmeadow TT.

Identify potential road safety issues that may arise as a result of the Banksmeadow TT

and associated traffic.

Roads of direct relevance to the Proposal were inspected, including:

Beauchamp Road between and including the intersections of Botany Road and Denison

Street.

Denison Street between Wentworth Avenue and Beauchamp Road.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Perry Street between Bunnerong Road and Beauchamp Road18

.

McPherson Street from Beauchamp Road to its cul-de-sac to the east of the Botany

Goods Railway Line.

The identified road safety issues associated with operation of the Proposal are described in

Table 8-47.

Table 8-47 Road safety issues

Location Issue

Northern approach of Beauchamp

Road/ Perry Street/ Site Access.

The lack of formal right-turn facility for vehicles entering the Site Access Road

may lead to queuing and increased risk of rear-end, side-swipe and lane

changing crashes.

It is also noted from the traffic assessment of the no build with other development

case, that the right-turn movement also fails with a predicted LoS of F.

Southern approach of Beauchamp


Similar to above, the lack of formal left-turn facility for vehicles entering the Site

Access may lead to either:

(i) rear-end / side swipe crashes in this approach; and

(ii) truck encroachment into the adjacent northbound lane as required to

negotiate the left-turn.

Beauchamp Road/ McPherson

Street intersection.

There is poor entering sight distance from the McPherson Street approach

towards oncoming traffic on Beauchamp Road from the north (estimated as 5-6

seconds of gap acceptance sight distance). The sight-limiting features include the

vegetation and property fence line on the western side of Beauchamp Road.

The lack of visibility in these respects may lead to poor gap selection of outbound

vehicles and associated crashes with vehicles on Beauchamp Road.

Furthermore, the poor angle of the intersection restricts visibility of truck drivers

towards the north. The sight line is obstructed due to the lack of inter-cabin

visibility. As a result many drivers were observed to approach the intersection at

a more perpendicular angle allowing a clearer sight line out of their passenger

side window. This resulted in encroachment into the opposing lane of McPherson

Street.

McPherson Street. There is extensive truck queuing within McPherson Street as a result of the

neighbouring land uses, particularly trucks associated with Botany Building

Recyclers, adjacent to the Proposal site. The on-street queuing has associated

safety risks such as increased risks of rear-end crashes, and side-swipe/ head-

on crashes in the event that other vehicles attempt to pass around the queued

vehicles.

The existing Site Access approach

to the signalised intersection with

Beauchamp Road and Perry Street.

There is a risk of side swipe crashes due to lack of turning space in the existing

Site Access approach to the signalised intersection at Beauchamp Road and

Perry Street.

Measures to mitigate the potential road safety issues are presented in Section 8.3.4, below.

18 It should be noted that this road will not be used by heavy vehicle traffic generated by the Proposal, and was not

included in the recommended mitigation measures.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Rail network impacts

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, a key objective of the Proposal is to promote the use of rail as a

transport mode, reducing heavy vehicle movements on the road network. All putrescible waste

would be transported from the Banksmeadow TT site to the Woodlawn Eco-Project Site by rail.

The Proposal would therefore maximise the movement of freight in containers or bulk freight by

rail. The following describes the rail network impacts associated with the Proposal.

Rail loading/ unloading facilities

As discussed in Section 3.2, a dedicated rail loading facility would be provided on the northern

boundary of the Site. This would have sufficient length to store a full length train on two sidings

with a capacity of 20 and 22 wagons, respectively. The placement of the rail line has been

carefully considered with respects to the loading operations and associated equipment, and the

movement of traffic within the Site.

The unloading facility at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site is located at Crisps Creek. This facility

has two sidings with a total combined length of 1,137 m. This allows for a total of 60 containers

to be handled per consignment (URS, 2010).

Rail movement demands

At full operational capacity, there is likely to be 6 train movements per week per direction

generated by the Proposal. This would consist of 6 outbound trains to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site, and 6 empty return trains. This would have a minor impact on the network capacity.

Rail path

Train movements between Asciano Botany site and Crisps Creek would utilise the following

routes:

Botany to Sefton via the Metropolitan Freight Network (MFN).

Sefton to Macarthur via the Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL).

Macarthur to Joppa Junction via the ARTC main south.

Joppa Junction to Crips Creek via the Country Rail Junction (CRN).

Preliminary discussions between Pacific National and ARTC and CRN (John Holland) have

provided a briefing of the Proposal to enable the inclusion of the proposed Train Service into

ARTC's forecast capacity planning process. Discussions are ongoing between Pacific National

and each of the relevant Network Access Providers to secure the appropriate access for the

Proposal.

Wider network improvement strategies

The freight planning needs along this corridor are managed by the respective rail asset owners

and in collaboration with the NSW and Federal governments. With respect to the Southern

Sydney Freight Line and the Metropolitan Freight Network, the rail asset is operated by ARTC.

Across this network, ARTC is responsible for selling access to train operators, capital

investment in the rail corridors and management of the network.

A substantial portion of the funding needed to carry out rail network upgrades and

improvements is sourced directly from the sale of train paths (Access). As such, any rail

capacity and safety requirements that arise through increased demand would be to a large

extent “self-mitigated” through the sale of train paths.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

It is expected that, with ongoing increases to rail volumes across the network, rail access

providers will continue to prioritise and delivery rail network maintenance and improvement

projects to meet the projected demand.


Intersection upgrade

As discussed above, the Proposal would have a direct impact on the Beauchamp Road/ Perry

Street/ Site Access intersection. The provision of the Site Access and the traffic generated by

this access would be a key contributor to the modelled performance of the intersection. As such,

this intersection would require upgrades to address these impacts. The proposed upgrades to

the intersection would include:


intersection.


A conceptual intersection arrangement for the upgrades is shown in Figure 8-36.

Figure 8-36 Schematic of revised layout of Beauchamp Road/ Perry Street/ Site Access intersection

Road Safety

Table 8-48 identified the measures that would be implemented to mitigate the identified road

safety issues associated with operation of the Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-48 Road safety issues and mitigation measures

Location Issue Recommended mitigation/

management measure

Northern approach of Beauchamp


The lack of formal right-turn facility for

vehicles entering the Site Access

Road may lead to queuing and

increased risk of rear-end, side-swipe

and lane changing crashes.

It is also noted from the traffic

assessment of the Future case (no

Proposal), that the right-turn

movement also fails with a predicted

LoS of F.

During detailed design, consideration

would be given to provision of an

indented right-turn lane.

This would separate and shelter right-

turning traffic from the southbound

through movement.

Southern approach of Beauchamp


Similar to above, the lack of formal

left-turn facility for vehicles entering

the Site Access may lead to either (i)

rear-end / side swipe crashes in this

approach as well as (ii) truck

encroachment into the adjacent

northbound lane as required to

negotiate the left-turn.

During detailed design, consideration

would be given to provision of an

indented left-turn lane.

This would separate and shelter left-

turning vehicles from other

northbound through vehicles. A formal

turning lane would also better

accommodate the left-turn swept path

and reduce the risk of encroachment

into adjacent lanes.

Beauchamp Road/ McPherson Street

intersection.

There is poor entering sight distance

from the McPherson Street approach

towards oncoming traffic on

Beauchamp Road from the north

(estimated as 5-6 seconds of gap

acceptance sight distance). The sight-

limiting features include the vegetation

and property fence line on the western

side of Beauchamp Road.

The lack of visibility in these respects

may lead to poor gap selection of

outbound vehicles and associated

crashes with vehicles on Beauchamp

Road.

Furthermore, the poor angle of the

intersection restricts visibility of truck

drivers towards the north. The sight

line is obstructed due to the lack of

inter-cabin visibility. As a result many

drivers were observed to approach

the intersection at a more

perpendicular angle allowing a clearer

sight line out of their passenger side

window. This resulted in

encroachment into the opposing lane

of McPherson Street.

The vegetation on the western side of

McPherson Street would be cleared

or trimmed back to re-instate a safe

entering sight distance sight line.

Consideration would be given to

implementing more kerb side parking

restrictions in McPherson Street so

that there is more road width to allow

vehicles to approach the intersection

at a perpendicular angle. Line-

marking adjustments should be

implemented to accompany this.

Interconnectivity would be provided

on Site between the McPherson

Street entry and the Site Access gate

to the Banksmeadow Transfer

Terminal. This would allow egressing

right-turning vehicles to use the

signalised intersection at Perry Street

as a possible alternative to

McPherson Street.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Location Issue Recommended mitigation/

management measure

McPherson Street. There is extensive truck queuing

within McPherson Street as a result of

the neighbouring land uses,

particularly trucks associated with the

construction recycling facility adjacent

to the Proposal site. The on-street

queuing has associated safety risks

such as increased risks of rear-end

crashes, and side-swipe/ head-on

crashes in the event that other

vehicles attempt to pass around the

queued vehicles.

The proposed Site layout includes

sufficient layover space for Proposal-

related trucks. As such, there are no

further mitigation measures proposed

in these respects.

A Traffic Management Plan would be

developed in collaboration with

Botany Building Recyclers to address

on-street queuing and access issues.

Kerb side parking restrictions along

McPherson Street would be reviewed,

in consultation with Botany Bay City

Council, with a view to removing

parking where space is required for

layover and queuing.

The existing Site Access approach to

the signalised intersection with

Beauchamp Road and Perry Street.

There is a risk of side swipe crashes

due to lack of turning space in the

existing Site Access approach to the

signalised intersection at Beauchamp

Road and Perry Street.

The internal approach to the Site

Access would be designed to cater for

side-by-side stacking of vehicles and

the swept path clearances from both

vehicles.

Appropriate queuing space would be

provided in this approach and layover

areas for staggering dispatch of

trucks. This was also modelled from a

traffic performance perspective and

has been discussed above.

Site Traffic Management

A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be prepared in consultation with the Randwick City

Council and Botany Bay City Council, prior to commencement of operations. The TMP would

outline control strategies for site operational traffic.

Control strategies would include an education program that would be developed to ensure all

drivers accessing the site are trained in the permitted transport routes in the vicinity of the

development. An enforcement program would also be developed to outline punitive measures

that would be imposed for breaching traffic restrictions. This enforcement program would be

based on a three strike principle, which is consistent with Veolia’s policy for disciplinary

measures.

Table 8-49 outlines the measures for any breach of traffic restrictions, as would be established

under the TMP for the Banksmeadow TT proposal:

Table 8-49 Enforcement Program

Offence Action – VES employee Action – external driver

First Verbal warning Verbal warning

Second Written warning and re-attendance to

induction training sessions

Written warning and re-attendance to

induction training sessions



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Offence Action – VES employee Action – external driver

Third Re-posting to another site or retrenchment Refused entry to site for driver

A Traffic Congestion Procedure would be prepared in conjunction with the TMP. The procedure

would include the following activities:

The site manager or weighbridge operator shall direct the relevant site personnel to

assess the scope and/or cause of the congestion.

Vehicles queued beyond the boundary shall be organised so as not to obstruct the traffic

movements or neighbouring businesses.

When possible, vehicles shall be moved onto the areas of hardstand, within the

Banksmeadow TT, site pending resolution of the problem.

Should all the above measures fail to relieve congestion vehicles shall be directed away

from the site. Should this occur, the site manager shall contact waste transporters

advising them to cease further deliveries to the site until the problem has been resolved.

Summary of traffic mitigation measures

The following mitigation measures are proposed to address the impacts identified in the Traffic

and Transport Impact Assessment:

The requirements of the Roads Act 1993 and the Road Transport (General) Act 2013

would be followed at all times, including notice requirements, consultation and

consent/concurrence requirements for works in, or closures of, public and classified roads

and the use of RAV routes for semi-trailers.

Veolia would enter into a Works Authorisation Deed19

with RMS for the upgrade of the

Beauchamp Road / Perry Street intersection. Detailed design of the intersection upgrade

works would be undertaken in accordance with the Works Authorisation Deed and would

be designed in accordance with RMS’ standards and specifications.

During development of the detailed design of the Perry Street /Beauchamp Road

intersection upgrades, consideration would be given to the development of engineered

measures to restrict trucks using Perry Street to access the Site from the east.

The Site Access would provide access for future land use development proposals on the

Asciano land, to the immediate north of the Banksmeadow TT site. Detailed design for

the Site Access via a single shared Beauchamp Rd Intersection would be designed for

Veolia’s required traffic movements plus a minimum of 100 traffic movements (in & out)

per hour for the remaining portion of the Asciano Site not being leased by Veolia.

Vegetation on the western side of McPherson Street, at the intersection with Beauchamp

Road, would be cleared or trimmed, to re-instate a safe entering sight distance sight line.

Veolia would liaise with Botany Bay City Council regarding the implementation of kerb

side parking restrictions on McPherson Street and adjust line-marking, to allow vehicles

to approach the intersection on a perpendicular angle.

19 A Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) is a formally executed common law agreement between Roads and Maritime and

a developer. The deed authorisies the developer to implement road works or other works for which the RMS has a

statutory interest, subject to prescribed requriements and conditions.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Interconnectivity would be provided within the Proposal site between the McPherson

Street entry and the Perry Street / Beauchamp Road access to the Banksmeadow TT.

Detailed design of the Site would provide for appropriate queuing space provided the

approach to the Perry Street/ Beauchamp Road access and provide layover areas for

staggering dispatch of trucks.

A Traffic Management Plan would be developed for the Proposal in consultation with

Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council that would specify the following:

- Trucks accessing the Site would be strictly prohibited from using Perry Street.

- An induction process and education program would be developed for the Site, which

would specify the access route restrictions.

- Development of a monitoring an recording program and an enforcement program that

would provide for the monitoring and recording of vehicles accessing the Site and

provide a mechanism for retraining and reprimand of drivers observed breaching the

access restrictions or waste acceptance requirements on the Site.

- Development of a traffic congestion procedure, that would specify the measures to be

implemented to manage any potential traffic impacts on neighbouring businesses.

This procedure would be developed in consultation with Botany Building Recyclers.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be developed for the

construction phase of the Proposal. The CTMP would form a sub-plan to the CEMP and

would prescribe locations for private worker vehicle parking during construction works,

access routes to the Site and notification requirements during construction of the

Proposal.

Pacific National would secure rail access from ARTC on behalf of the Proposal from

ARTC prior to commencement of operation of the Proposal.

CONCLUSION 8.3.5

A Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment was undertaken to assess the potential impacts of

the Proposal on traffic and transport.

Construction traffic would temporarily increase local traffic movements over an eleven month

period. Construction traffic would be restricted to typical construction work hours and would

have short term and localised impacts. At its peak up to 60 trucks per day would access the Site

during the construction phase. Once operating at full capacity the Proposal would be expected

to require up to 215 trucks per day for the delivery of putrescible waste and up to 140 trucks per

day for the delivery of non-putrescible waste. The transfer of putrescible waste from the facility

would by via rail, requiring one train per day, and the transfer of non-putrescible waste from the

facility would be expected to require up to 16 trucks per day.

Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk associated with, and

consequences of, key traffic and impacts of the Proposal on traffic and transport access issues

relating to the Proposal. These issues and mitigation measures are summarised as follows:

Traffic volumes and frequency, including heavy vehicles: The assessment

determined that there would be changes in traffic performance at the Perry Street /

Beauchamp Road/ Site Access intersection. Mitigation measures would be required to

accommodate traffic demand from background growth and additional traffic generated by

the Banksmeadow TT, including:

- Veolia would enter into a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS for the upgrade of the

Beauchamp Road/Perry Street intersection.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

- Site Access would provide access for future land use development proposals on

Asciano land, to the immediate north of the Banksmeadow TT site.

- Interconnectivity would be provided within the Proposal site between McPherson

Street entry and the Perry Street / Beauchamp Road access.

- A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan

(CTMP) would be developed for the Proposal.

Road safety: Potential measures to improve road safety performance on McPherson

Street and at the Beauchamp Road/ McPherson Street intersection were identified and

would be implemented as appropriate, in consultation with the Roads and Maritime

Services, Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council.

On-site traffic management: The facility would be open to receive waste 24 hours a

day, seven days a week. Vehicle types accessing the Site would include heavy vehicles

up to, and including, semi-trailers (19.0m). An OEMP would be developed for the

proposal that would outline the safe operational procedures for the Site.

Rail access to and from the site via external rail networks: Discussions between

relevant rail asset owners and Pacific National, as Veolia's proposed train operator, are

underway regarding a connection agreement for trains associated with the Proposal.

Based on existing train paths, there is sufficient access available to accommodate train

movements for the operation of the Proposal.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on traffic and access. With the mitigation

measures identified, including key road upgrades, the residual risks for traffic and access have

been considered to be low to moderate.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

8.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION 8.4.1

Proposed waste management and reduction strategies that would be implemented for the

Proposal during the construction and operation phases of the Proposal are detailed below.

Mitigation measures which would be taken to address these impacts are outlined in Section

8.4.3.

This Section has been prepared to address the DGRs and includes the following information:

Details of proposed classification and quantity of waste that would be received,

generated, handled and processed the Proposal site

Details of the layout of the waste facility, the management and transport process and the

environmental controls that would be used to minimise impacts associated with handling

waste at the Site

Description of how putrescible and non-putrescible waste would be stored and managed

on site, including transport of waste to and from the site

Details of the potential impacts associated with storing, sorting and disposing of this

waste and waste products

Measures that would be implemented to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the

aims, objectives and guidelines in the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Strategy 2007 and the EPA’s Waste Classification Guidelines.

A Waste Management Plan for the demolition and construction phase of the Proposal is

included as Appendix I to the EIS.



The construction phase of the Proposal would include the demolition of several existing

buildings, which would generate significant quantities of waste, and the construction of the new

facilities, which would generate further waste in the form of packaging and excess materials.

Demolition waste streams which would potentially be generated include:

Bricks / concrete / asphalt.

Steel sheeting, frames, guttering, roller doors, access ladders and walkways.

Asbestos materials.

Redundant drainage and piping items comprising metals and plastics.

Gantry cranes.

Redundant lighting, wiring and mechanical services.

UPSS and associated contaminated materials.

Redundant rail infrastructure.

Waste streams associated with the construction phase of the Proposal would include:

Cleared vegetation.

Contaminated soil.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Contaminated groundwater.

Excess drainage (e.g. geotextile, rock) and piping materials.

Erosion and sediment control measures, such as silt fencing and sandbags.

Concrete, including cured concrete and washwater.

Formwork, including used formwork and offcuts.

Steel and steel reinforcement offcuts.

Chemicals, including adhesives, resins, paints and curing agents.

Batteries.

Packaging, including cardboard, plastic and drums.

Putrescible waste from lunchrooms.

Plant and equipment maintenance waste (e.g. oily rags, oil filters, tyres etc.).

A Waste Management Plan has been developed for the Proposal, which identifies the

approximate quantities of waste associated with the construction phase and the facility that

would be used for disposal. The plan is included as Appendix I to this EIS.

Operational impacts

As discussed in Section 3, the Proposal would, once operational, be capable of consolidating up

to 400,000 t of general solid waste (putrescible) and 100,000 t of general solid waste (non-

putrescible) (both including mixed household waste and mixed commercial and industrial (C&I)

waste) per annum, for transfer to various resource recovery facilities.

Waste recording

All waste transport vehicles entering the facility would enter the site via the incoming

weighbridge. The weighbridge operator would be responsible for recording all details of the

waste accepted onto the site and directing putrescible and non-putrescible waste streams to the

correct section of the terminal building for processing. The weighbridge operator would record

the following information:

The origin, type and weight of waste delivered

The date the delivery was made

The registration number of the vehicle making the delivery

The particulars of where on the site the waste would be placed.

Waste transport vehicles exiting the site would be weighed on the outgoing weighbridge to

confirm the weight of waste deposited at the Proposal site. A weighbridge would also be

installed on the western side of the transfer terminal, adjacent to the non-putrescible waste area

to record the weight of consolidated non-putrescible waste loaded into semi-trailers for transport

to resource recovery and recycling centres. For each semi-trailer load of waste transported from

the non-putrescible waste area to a centre for resource recovery, the following information

would be recorded:

The amount and type of waste and other material contained in the load

The date the load was transported from the Banksmeadow TT

The registration number of the vehicle transporting the load

The address of the place to which any load of waste was transported.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

All weighbridges on the Proposal site would be National Measurement Institute (NMI) approved

and maintained in proper working order and would be certified at least once a year in

accordance with the Commonwealth National Measurement Act 1960.

Records of waste transport would be maintained by Veolia for submission to the EPA and

quantification of the waste levy payable20

.

Waste screening and management of non-conforming waste

Waste accepted at the Proposal site would include, general solid waste (putrescible), as well as

general solid waste (non-putrescible) from C&I and MSW sources. Hazardous, liquid and

industrial waste would not be allowed at the Proposal site. Specifically, wastes that would not be

accepted at the Site, and are to be handled as ‘non-conforming waste’ include:

Radioactive wastes

Toxic wastes including any:

- Material containing arsenic, cyanide or sulphide

- Toxic soluble salts of the following metals: barium, boron, cadmium, copper,

chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver or zinc.

Pesticides, in particular any of the following:

- Chlorinated hydrocarbons

- Fluorinated hydrocarbons

- Organophosphates

- Carbamates

- Phenols.

Soluble acid or alkali or acidic or basic compounds.

Liquid wastes

Hazardous wastes, for example asbestos

Any flammable liquid or material deriving from grease, oil, tar petroleum, shale or coal

Any sludge or material (unless it can be shown to be innocuous and harmless) being the

refuse from any industrial process carried out in any:

- Tanning or leather processing plant

- Petroleum or petrochemical plant

- Chemical plant

- Paint manufacturing plant

- Metal treatment plant

- Vegetable oil or mineral oil processing plant

- Pharmaceutical or drug manufacturing plant.

Medical and quarantine wastes

Dead animals.

There would be three main screening points for identification of the type of waste received as it

is delivered to the site:

20 As discussed in Section 5.2.1, it is anticipated the waste levy will be payable by waste transfer stations, once the

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation is revised.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The weighbridge operator would question the driver as to contents of load and would

undertake a visual inspection of the load, if necessary, before directing the vehicle to

either the putrescible or non-putrescible area.

The operator of the front end loader in the putrescible area of the transfer terminal

building would inspect the waste as it is discharged from the vehicle, to check for non-

conforming waste and easily extractable, bulk recyclable waste.

The excavator operator in the non-putrescible area of the transfer terminal building would

inspect the waste as it is discharged from the vehicle to check for non-conforming waste,

including putrescible waste.

In all instances where a load with non-conforming waste is identified the site manager would be

immediately informed and a ‘Non-conforming waste’ form would be filled out. An example ‘Non-

conforming waste’ form is shown in Appendix J. Veolia would maintain a copy of the completed

form, with another copy given to the customer that transported the waste. In the event that

easily extractable, bulk recyclable waste is detected in the putrescible area, an internal

recording form would be filled out to identify the type of waste to be transferred to the non-

putrescible side of the building.

If a load of non-conforming waste is identified prior to unloading, the vehicle would be directed

to an appropriate disposal facility. If non-conforming waste is identified during deposition of the

waste on the tipping floor, the vehicle driver would be asked to immediately stop depositing the

waste. The non-conforming waste would be reloaded into the vehicle that transported the waste

to the Proposal site and directed to transport the waste to an appropriate facility, with all actions

documented on the ‘Non-conforming waste’ form. In the event that the vehicle depositing the

non-conforming waste has already left the building, the site operator would segregate the non-

conforming waste into a dedicated ‘safe area’ on the tipping room floor, so that operational

activities can continue while the customer responsible for the waste is notified and advised to

remove the non-conforming waste. The front end loader or excavator operator(s) would assist

the customer retrieving the non-conforming waste to reload the waste into the customer’s

vehicle for disposal at an appropriate facility.

In the event that the non-conforming waste identified is putrescible waste on the non-putrescible

waste tipping floor a ‘Non-conforming waste’ form would be filled out to document the waste.

Transfer of the waste from the non-putrescible area of the terminal building would be prescribed

on the form and the front end loader would be used to transfer the waste from the non-

putrescible area to the putrescible area, through the doorway in the internal wall separating the

two areas. The doorway between the two areas would remain closed under normal operating

conditions, and only opened in order to transfer the non-conforming waste. The weight of the

putrescible waste transported between the two areas of the building would be taken by the front

end loader performing the transfer, which would be fitted with an NMI approved and calibrated

scale. The weight would be recorded on the non-conforming waste form, which would be used

to reconcile the difference in putrescible and non-putrescible waste weights as recorded at the

incoming and outgoing weighbridges.

Waste deposited on the tipping floor would generally be handled in a first in / first out basis.

However, if a waste load is identified as either odorous or dusty, that load would be prioritised

by the front end loader or excavator operator for immediate compaction or placement in the

semi-trailer. Loads that are identified for prioritisation would be recorded on an incident

management form.

Waste consolidation

For the putrescible waste stream, the remaining material would then be pushed by a front end

loader to one of two chutes that would feed the waste compactors. The weight of waste inserted

into the compactors would be measured with an NMI approved scale. Once the correct weight is

loaded (31.5 t), the compactor would compress the waste into a consolidated bale that is



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

inserted into specially designed shipping containers, which have seals to prevent the release of

any leachate and carbon filters to impede the release of odour from the waste during transport.

The weight of waste inserted into the container would be automatically recorded for reporting

purposes under the POEO Act. All putrescible waste received at the terminal would be

compacted and containerised in a timely fashion to ensure the tipping floor is clear of waste

where possible. Once the waste has been inserted into the container, any residual waste would

be removed from around the container door, and the container sealed. A container handler,

fitted with an NMI approved and calibrated scale, would be used to lift the container from the

compaction area and transport it to the rail yard. The scale on the container handler would be

used to check and confirm the accuracy of the scales within the compactor areas.

After visual checks, the non-putrescible mixed waste would be pushed to the edge of the tipping

floor by a front-end loader, where an excavator with a grapple arm would be used to load

material into an open-top walking floor trailer, for transport to resource recovery facilities for

recovery of recyclables prior to reprocessing. Items that can be readily sorted would be

separated into recycling bays, which would have a maximum capacity of 50 t of waste.

The maximum height of putrescible and non-putrescible waste stockpiles on the tipping floor or

within the designated sorting bays within the non-putrescible waste area would be 4.5 m.

However, as noted above, the area would be operated in a manner to minimise the amount of

waste on the tipping floor and containerise waste or consolidate received in a timely fashion.

Under no circumstances would stockpiling of uncontainerised waste external to the terminal

building be permitted.

The semi-trailer transferring the non-putrescible waste would be weighed on the weighbridge

positioned on the western side of the transfer terminal building to record the amount of non-

putrescible waste removed from the Site.

The processing of waste at the Site has the potential to impact the surrounding environment

through leachate generation, litter, odour, dust, noise and vibration, and pests. These impacts

are assessed throughout Chapter 8.

Disruption to operations

Operations at the Banksmeadow TT would have the potential to be disrupted by various internal

and external factors. Some disruptions may be planned, such as scheduled maintenance work

on the rail infrastructure or compactors, while other disruptions may occur without notice.

Potential sources of disruption to the operation of the Banksmeadow TT are shown in Table 8-

50.

Table 8-50 Potential operational disruptions

Factor Potential Impact

Power disruption Compactors inoperative

Lighting inoperative

Data and communication facilities inoperative

Rail Service disruption (scheduled) Unable to transport loaded containers to Woodlawn;

Unable to receive empty containers from Woodlawn.

Rail Service disruption (unscheduled) Unable to transport loaded containers to Woodlawn;

Unable to receive empty containers from Woodlawn.

Failure of front-end loader or excavator Inability to push waste into compactor opening and produce compacted

bale or load onto semi-trailer

Failure of Container Handler Inability to load and unload containers



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Factor Potential Impact

Failure of Sweeper Inability to provide ongoing site sweeping

Failure of the boom gate at the entry to

the transfer terminal

Disruption to the safe flow of traffic at the site

Failure of compaction unit(s) Compactors inoperative

Measures to mitigate the potential impacts caused by operational disruptions are detailed below

and are presented in Appendix K.

Operational waste generation

Site waste would also be generated, through offices, lunch rooms and maintenance activities.

These waste streams could potentially include:

General solid waste (putrescible) – mixed residual waste.

General solid waste (non-putrescible) – recyclable materials (such as paper, plastic

containers, glass containers and aluminium cans), cardboard and plastic packaging, and

maintenance items consumables.

Containers for the disposal of site generated waste would be provided, including bins for the

segregation of recyclables and general waste.

The Proposal would also generate leachate; the management of which is discussed below.

Leachate generation and management

The leachate management system for the Proposal would be entirely independent of the

stormwater system for the Site. Leachate is considered to be any liquid that has come into

contact with waste or waste processing areas. The leachate management strategy therefore

focuses on the bunded areas within the terminal building where waste would be transferred from

trucks to the compactors for transport to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site and within the non-

putrescible waste area.

Based on the experience at the Clyde Transfer Terminal, approximately 1,800 L of water are

required each day for washdown of the transfer terminal and compactors. It should also be

noted that the Proposal design has incorporated learnings from the Clyde Transfer Terminal,

where the compactors are currently exposed to rain water. The compactors at the

Banksmeadow TT would be enclosed, reducing the amount of leachate that would be generated

by the Proposal. The Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility currently produces approximately

200 L of leachate per day. Therefore, total estimated volume of leachate generated at the Site

would therefore be 2,000 L per day, generated predominantly by washdown of the terminal

building.

A 20 kL leachate tank would be installed below the transfer terminal building to capture all

leachate from the two tipping floors of the putrescible and non-putrescible waste areas, around

the compactors and washdown liquid. Once captured within the leachate tank, the leachate

would be pumped into a 27 kL capacity tank container that meets the standards of the

international standards organisation (ISO) and is suitable for transport by rail (ISO tank).

Once nearing capacity, the ISO tank would be weighed using the NMI approved scale fitted to

the container handler and the weight recorded as an out-going transaction on the weighbridge

database. The tank would be recorded on the rail manifest and placed on a wagon for transport

to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. On arrival at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, the tank would

be weighed in over the weighbridge and recorded on the Woodlawn Eco-Project site database



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

as ‘N205 – Industrial waste treatment / disposal residues’. The contents of the tank would then

be emptied into the leachate treatment pond located within the Bioreactor site.

Veolia has met with Sydney Water Corporation to discuss the potential for a trade waste

agreement for discharge of leachate water from the site. During discussions it was agreed that

disposal of leachate to the trade waste system unlikely to be a viable, as on site treatment

would be required in order to meet Sydney Water’s trade waste discharge limits and at this

stage the expected volumes are considered too small to warrant treatment. Transport of

leachate to Woodlawn Eco-Project site in the manner described above is therefore the preferred

method of disposal of leachate.

Regional waste management benefits

The Proposal would positively impact waste management in the region by:

Allowing local governments and C&I operators to choose to send their residual waste to

the Woodlawn Eco-Project site, which incorporates the following key facilities:

The Woodlawn Bioreactor – an engineered landfill with strict environmental

protection measures, landfill gas capture and electricity generation, and winner of

the Waste Management Association of Australia’s National Landfill Excellence

Award (2007).

The Woodlawn MBT facility (currently approved) which will recover metals and

organics from incoming waste. Recovered organic material from the MBT is

planned to be used to rehabilitate areas severely degraded due to previous mining

activities at this Site.

Access to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site would assist local governments and businesses

to reach the NSW Government’s landfill diversion targets for municipal and C&I waste,

and help to conserve putrescible landfill airspace in the immediate Sydney region.

Facilitating the recovery of recyclable materials from non-putrescible C&I waste through

transferring the waste material to materials recovery facilities, which would assist in the

achievement of the NSW Government’s landfill diversion targets for the C&I sector,

conserve landfill space, and return valuable materials to the productive economy.

As the existing AWT facilities and putrescible waste landfills in the Sydney area are

owned and / or operated by one company, the proposal would create choice and

competition for waste management services.


Construction mitigation measures

Measures to mitigate the effect of the construction waste streams would be incorporated into the

Proposal’s CEMP, of which a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) would form a

sub-plan and would include the following information:

1. Characterisation of construction waste streams.

2. Management of hazardous waste streams, including asbestos, contents of the UPSS,

contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater.

3. Procedures to manage construction waste streams, including handling, storage,

classification and tracking.

4. Mitigation measures for avoidance and minimisation of waste materials.

5. Procedures and targets for reuse and recycling of waste materials.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

6. Roles and responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the CWMP.

7. Training, monitoring, reporting and reviewing requirements to ensure compliance with the

CWMP.

Further information about the quantity and management of particular waste streams during

construction is provided in Appendix I.

Operational mitigation measures

In order to ensure that the Proposal’s waste management operations would have minimal

impact on the surrounding environment, facility design features and the OEMP would both act to

mitigate potential impacts.

Design features of the facility would include:

The non-putrescible waste, which has some potential to generate dust, would be

unloaded within the southern end of the transfer building, whilst putrescible waste would

be unloaded within the northern end. The terminal building would be enclosed, with the

exception of vehicle access openings and an air extraction system. The air extraction

system would service the putrescible waste and compactor areas, within the northern end

of the building, and would manage odour through a single exhaust point. Dust generated

from non-putrescible waste would be managed by dust suppression systems located

within the southern end of the transfer building.

The main source of potential significant odour emissions would be from the exhaust stack

ventilating odour emissions captured from within the facility, located on the northwest

corner of the main facility building. The proposed ventilation system for the

Banksmeadow TT is based on the system installed at the Clyde TT as this has operated

effectively since its installation. The ventilation system has been designed to replace the

air within the transfer terminal building nine times per hour, minimising the escape of

fugitive odour emissions.

A leachate drainage system would be connected to the putrescible waste compactors and

the area of the terminal containing the compactors would be enclosed to minimise the

generation of leachate from exposure to rainwater and reduce the potential for odour. The

leachate and stormwater management systems would be designed to operate

independently of each other and not mix.

Specially designed shipping containers, which have seals to prevent the release of any

leachate and carbon filters to impede the release of odour from the waste during

transport.

Veolia is assessing the feasibility of energy saving devices such as variable speed drives

for the extraction fans and putrescible waste compactors and installation of energy

efficient lighting.

Provision of recycling bins and general waste bins for use by staff and vehicle drivers.

Development of a Dust Management Plan detailing the measures to be employed on site

to minimise dust generation (see Section 8.5.4 for further details).

As part of the OEMP, Veolia would develop an enforcement program for operation of the

Proposal, which would include punitive measures for drivers delivering non-conforming and

unacceptable waste to the Proposal site. The enforcement program would be developed based

on Veolia’s policy for disciplinary measures and would include a ‘three strikes’ principle, being:

First offence – a verbal warning would be issued and documented on the Non-conforming

waste form

Second offence – a written warning would be issued and documented on the Non-

conforming waste form



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Third offence – Entry to the Banksmeadow TT would be refused.

Processes and procedures within the OEMP to manage the impacts of operational waste would

include the following:

Stormwater Management Plan (see Section 8.2.4)

Traffic Management Plan (see Section 8.3.4)

Odour Management Plan (see Section 8.5.4)

Dust Management Plan (see Section 8.5.4)

Noise Management Plan – Terminal Operations (see Section 8.6.4)

Noise Management Plan – Rail Operations (see Section 8.6.4)

Incident Response Plan (see Section 8.7.4)

Vermin and Pest Control Plan (see Section 8.10.4)

Waste Management Plan (see below)

Operational Contingency Plan (see below).

Waste Management Plan

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) would be incorporated into the OEMP, which would include

the following information:

Characterisation of waste streams accepted at the facility

Procedures for weighbridge activities – including screening of incoming loads, weighing of

incoming and outgoing vehicles, weighbridge data recording and archiving, and

weighbridge inspection schedule.

Tipping procedures for each waste stream – including screening and scavenging.

Procedures for management of non-conforming loads and materials.

Procedures for ensuring the Site remains clean and tidy.

Procedures for loading materials – including front end loader operation, loading of non-

putrescible waste into semi-trailers, loading of putrescible waste into compactors,

compacting and containerising operations.

Procedures for rail transport – loading and unloading of containers.

Operational contingencies – should any Site activity undergo a temporary shutdown.

Roles and responsibilities for compliance with the WMP.

Procedures for inspection, monitoring, review and auditing to ensure compliance with the

WMP.

An Asbestos Waste Management Procedure that would detail the steps to be followed in

the event that non-conforming waste containing asbestos reaches the Site.

Operational Contingency Plan

An Operational Contingency Plan would be incorporated into the OEMP and would include the

following:

Identification of internal and external factors that may disrupt the operation of the

Banksmeadow TT.

Identification of the potential operational impacts associated with operational disruption.

Prescribe measures to mitigate potential impacts associated with disruption to operations



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Immediate notification of the EPA on 131 555 in the event of unscheduled disruptions to

the operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

An example of the Operational Contingency Plan for the Banksmeadow TT is provided in

Appendix K.

CONCLUSION 8.4.4

This Section has addressed the waste management practices that would be employed at the

Proposal site to minimise impacts associated with receiving, sorting, consolidating and

containerising waste.

Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk and consequences associated

with the key issues are summarise below:

Development of a Waste Management Plan that would be incorporated into the OEMP for

the Site, which would detail waste screening processes, waste handling and loading

procedures and including an Asbestos Waste Management Procedure.

Development of an Operational Contingency Plan which would be incorporated into the

OEMP and specify the procedures to be followed in the event of external or internal

events that disrupt the operation of the Proposal.

Installation of a leachate management system to maintain separation of leachate from

stormwater and transport of leachate to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site via rail.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts associated with the management of waste at

the Proposal site and has identified the management processes that would be implemented on

the Site to mitigate those impacts. Through the implementation of these mitigation measures

and strategies, management of waste at the Proposal site would be consistent with the aims,

objectives and guidelines in the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007

and the EPA’s Waste Classification Guidelines.

8.5 AIR QUALITY

INTRODUCTION 8.5.1

Wilkinson Murray was engaged to undertake an air quality assessment for the Proposal. The

complete Air Quality Impact Assessment is presented in Appendix L. This section summarises

the air quality impact assessment undertaken by Wilkinson Murray, which reviews the

meteorological conditions of the Proposal site and surrounds and existing, available air quality

data. Sources of odour emissions and other air quality pollutants on the Proposal site were

identified, based on the experience of operation of the Clyde Transfer Terminal.

Odour and dust emissions would be controlled within the transfer terminal building through the

operation of an exhaust stack and ventilation system and a dust suppression system. Odour

emissions from the Proposal were modelled in accordance with NSW EPA Approved Methods

for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (Air Quality Guidelines) to confirm

that the proposed mitigation measures would meet the relevant criteria.

Key air quality impacts associated with the Proposal includes:

Odour emissions from putrescible waste handled at the facility on residential receivers.

Dust emissions from handling of putrescible and non-putrescible waste within the transfer

terminal building.

Dust emissions during construction of the Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

In accordance with the DGRs for the Proposal the following points are discussed in this Section:

A quantitative assessment of the potential air quality and odour impacts for the

construction and operation phases of the Proposal in accordance with the EPA

guidelines, including consideration of cumulative impacts associated with existing

emission sources.

Identification of emission control practices that would be employed by the Proposal.

An assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed air quality and odour control

measures, demonstrating compliance with the regulatory framework.

Details of ongoing management and monitoring measures for preventing point source

and fugitive emissions.

Measures to mitigate potential dust and odour emissions are set out in Section 8.5.4, and

include construction mitigation measures and operation mitigation measures for the ongoing

management and monitoring of impacts in order to minimise emissions.


Climate

Long-term climatic data from the Bureau of Meteorology weather station at Sydney Airport,

located approximately 4.5 km west-northwest of the Proposal site, were analysed to

characterise the local climate in the proximity of the Proposal. The data indicate that January is

the hottest month with a mean maximum temperature of 26.5 ºC; July is the coldest month with

mean minimum temperature of 7.2 ºC.

Humidity levels exhibit some variability over the day and seasonal fluctuations. Mean 9AM

humidity levels range from 61 per cent in October to 74 per cent in June. Mean 3PM humidity

levels vary from 49 per cent in August to 63 per cent in February.

Rainfall peaks during the first half of the year declines during latter half. The data show June is

the wettest month with an average rainfall of 122.9 mm over 8.8 days and September is the

driest month with an average rainfall of 60.3 mm over 6.8 days.

Wind speeds during the warmer months have a greater spread between the 9am and 3pm

conditions compared to the colder months. The mean 9AM wind speeds range from 12.6 km/h

in May to 16.3 km/h in October. The mean 3PM wind speeds vary from 17.1 km/h in May to 25.3

km/h in November.

Modelling was undertaken in accordance with the NSW EPA Air Quality Guidelines, using a

combination of the CALPUFF Modelling System and TAPM. The TAPM model is applied to

generate a three dimensions upper air data file, for input into the CALPUFF Modelling System,

which ultimately simulates dispersion processes in the atmosphere.

The model was applied to predict the flows important to local scale air pollution, such as sea

breezes and terrain induced flows, against a background of larger scale meteorology provided

by synoptic analysis, as applicable at the Banksmeadow TT site. The model showed that on an

annual basis winds from the west-southwest, west and north-northeast were most frequent.

During summer and spring, winds from the north-northeast and northeast were most dominant.

The seasons of autumn and winter had fairly similar wind distributions, with a large proportion of

wind from the west-southwest and west.

Figure 8-37 includes graphs of the temperature, wind speed, mixing height and stability

classification over the modelling period and shows the trends considered to be representative of

the Banksmeadow area.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-37 Meteorological Analysis of CALMET Extract (Cell Ref 5051)

Ambient air quality

Background ambient air quality data was obtained from the Randwick NSW EPA monitoring

site, which measures particulate matter (PM10) concentrations using a Tapered Element

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM). The data from this monitoring is analysed and used to

characterise the ambient air quality in the local area. The location of Randwick monitoring site is

approximately 3 km northeast of the Proposal site.

The monitoring data indicates that the annual average PM10 concentrations at the Randwick

monitoring site are below the 30 µg/m³ criterion, as established under Approved Methods for the

Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (NSW DEC, 2005) (EPA Air Quality

Guidelines) for all years reviewed. The maximum 24-hour average PM10 concentration at the

monitoring station were also below the criterion of 50 µg/m³ for all years reviewed (see Table 8-

51 and Figure 8-38).

Table 8-51 Summary of PM10 monitoring from Randwick NSW EPA monitoring site (µg/m³)

Year Annual average Maximum 24-hour average

2010 16.0 42.7

2011 16.0 40.1

2012 17.9 43.7



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-38 PM10 monitoring from Randwick NSW EPA monitoring site

It can be seen from Figure 8-38 that concentrations are nominally highest in the spring and

summer months with the warmer weather raising the potential for drier ground and elevating the

level of windblown dust, the occurrence of bushfires and pollen levels.

Sensitive receivers

The closest residential and other sensitive receivers to the Proposal site and are shown in Table

8-52, which identifies these receivers, the type of receiver and the approximate distance from

the Banksmeadow TT site and shown in Figure 8-39.

Table 8-52 Existing sensitive Receivers within approximately 1km of the Proposal site21

Receiver ID

Classification Description Distance from Site

Boundary

Hillsdale

Residential Area

R1 & R2

Residential

Residential suburb, to the east of the Proposal

site, with closest receivers located on the eastern

side of Denison Street.

250-500 m

(Approx.)

Matraville

Residential Area

R3

Residential

Residential suburb, to the east-south-east of the

subject site, with the closest receivers located

along Perry Street at setback distances of

typically >350 m.

Mostly >350m

Perry Street

Residences

R4

Residential

Three buildings on Perry Street (Nos 20, 22 and

24) on industrially zoned land, but with potential

residential uses are located closer at 120-150m

from the main Site entrance.

Three receivers

within 120-150 m

(Approx.)

Industrial Units

Beauchamp Rd

C1

Commercial

Commercial units located to the east of the

Beauchamp Road site entrance, on the eastern

side of Beauchamp Road.

30 m (Approx.)

21 Asciano has in-principle agreements with Veolia and operations would require mutual co-operation between these

sites. For the purpose of this assessment, the Asciano Botany Site has therefore not been considered as a

sensitive/affected receiver.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Receiver ID

Classification Description Distance from Site

Boundary

Goodman Botany

Bay Industrial

Park

C2

Commercial

Commercial receivers located to the south of the

McPherson Street site entrance, on the southern

side of McPherson Street.

30 m (Approx.)

Toll Container

Depot

C3

Commercial

Commercial receivers located to the south-west

of the Site, to the west of the existing freight rail

line.

65 m (Approx.)

Orica Southland C4

Industrial Industrial receivers located to the west of the

Site, to the west of the existing freight rail line. 35 m (Approx.)

Orica Botany Bay C5

Industrial Industrial receivers located to the east of the

Site, beyond the Asciano Botany Site. 50 m (Approx.)

Botany Building

Recyclers

C6

Industrial

Industrial receiver

(construction/demolition/recycling yard) abutting

the Site to the south.

0 m (Approx.)

As the Perry Street residences are located within the suburb of Matraville, the Matraville

Residential area was interpolated to extend to these receivers for the purposes of this

assessment.

Figure 8-39 Receivers within approximately 1 km of the Proposal site



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Assessment criteria

Air quality criteria are benchmarks set to protect the general health and amenity of the

community in relation to air quality. The sections below identify the applicable air quality criteria

for the potential air emissions that would be generated by the Proposal.

The air quality goals that are relevant to this study are sourced from the Approved Methods for

the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (NSW DEC, 2005) (EPA Air Quality

Guidelines). The key air quality impacts associated with the Proposal would be odour emissions

and the emission of particulate matter (PM10) during construction and operation of the Proposal.

Odour criteria

Prediction of the likely odour impacts that may arise from a proposed development is done by

using air dispersion modelling which can calculate the level of dilution of odours emitted from

the source at the point that it reaches surrounding receptors. This approach allows the air

dispersion model to produce results in terms of odour units, which represent the number of

times that the odour would need to be diluted to reach a level that is just detectable to the

human nose. Odour less than one odour unit (1 OU), would not be detectable to most people.

The odour criterion 2 OU is applied in this assessment for residential receptors in an urban

environment.

Particulate matter criteria

Table 8-53 shows the PM10 criteria applicable to the Proposal. It is noted that the air quality

criteria for the relevant particulate matter pollutants relate to the total pollutant burden in the air

and not just the pollutants from the Proposal. As such, consideration of background pollutant

levels is required when using these goals to assess potential impacts.

Table 8-53 NSW EPA Air Quality Impact Assessment Criteria

Pollutant Averaging Period Impact Criterion

Total suspended particulates (TSP) Annual Total 90 µg/m³

Particulate matter ≤10 µg/m³ (PM10) Annual Total 30 µg/m³

24-hour Incremental 50 µg/m³

Deposited dust (DD) Annual Total 2 g/m²/month

Annual Incremental 4 g/m²/month


To establish the Site, the temporary disturbance and demolition of existing site buildings is

required. Other activities associated with the construction of the Proposal involve the

establishment of a number of buildings and related infrastructure. Potential dust emissions may

be generated during earthworks including loading / emplacing material, transport on Site,

shaping operations and windblown dust generated from exposed areas and stockpiles. Exhaust

emission from the operations of construction vehicles and plant would also generate particulate

emissions.

An estimation of dust emissions associated with the construction phase of the Proposal was

undertaken in accordance with the emission factors from the US EPA AP42 Emission Factors

document (USEPA, 1985 and updates) and the State Pollution Control Commission document



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

(SPCC, 1983). The assessment concluded that the total amount of dust generated from the

construction phase would be unlikely to be significant given the nature of the activities and as

these activities would be located away from the nearest off-site receptor. Hence, any potential

dust impacts would be unlikely to be discernible beyond the existing levels of dust that currently

occur. It is noted that the calculation assumes that reasonable construction dust controls are

implemented.

Measures to minimise dust generation during construction are set out below.

To ensure dust generation during the construction activities is controlled and the potential for

off-site impacts are reduced, appropriate operational and physical mitigation measures would be

utilised.

Operation impacts

Odour impact assessment

The main source of potential significant odour emissions would be from the exhaust stack

ventilating odour emissions captured from within the facility, located on the northwest corner of

the main facility building. The proposed ventilation system for the Banksmeadow TT is based on

the system installed at the Clyde TT as this has operated without odour complaints since its

installation and is considered to represent the best available odour control technology that is

practicable for a waste transfer terminal. The air extraction system would be designed to

ventilate the building by capturing and dispersing odour emissions from all significant odour

sources within the transfer terminal building, including the putrescible waste and compactor

area. The bulk air exchange rate is proposed to achieve approximately nine air changes per

hour within the transfer terminal building.

The parameters used in the modelling are shown in Table 8-54. The assessment was

performed for the Proposal operating at operational design capacity of 400,000 tpa throughput

of putrescible waste. The ventilation system has been designed to achieve approximately nine

air changes per hour within the building, minimising the escape of fugitive odour emissions. To

account for the potential for fugitive emissions from the doorways as trucks enter and exit the

terminal building, five per cent of the total odour emissions was adopted and considered a

sensible and conservative assumption for fugitive emissions. Containers used for the transport

of putrescible waste would be specially constructed and have activated carbon filtration packs

fitted to the air exhaust vent on the container. The low flow and carbon filtered odour emission

from the containers has a very small odour emission potential and Veolia’s existing operations

at Clyde Transfer Terminal and the Crisps Creek Intermodal Facility, shows that any potential

odour emissions sources from the enclosed containers during the transportation process are

virtually eliminated.

Table 8-54 Exhaust stack parameters and odour emission parameters

Parameter Value

Stack diameter 2.6 m

Building ventilation rate 390,000 m3/h (108 m

3/s)

Stack exit velocity 20 m/s

Stack height (above ground level) 21 m

Odour emissions

Mean odour concentration 320 (odour units) OU

Mean stack gas temp 21.4oC



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Parameter Value

Mean stack gas velocity 88.7 m/s

Waste in terminal 250 tonnes

Estimated odour emission rate 113.5 ou.m3/s per tonne of garbage

An hourly variable emissions profile was developed, based on a typical operating day at Clyde

TT, as this would represent the ‘worst case’ daily levels expected at the Banksmeadow TT22

. Air

dispersion modelling of the odour emissions from the exhaust stack was conducted to predict

potential air quality impacts on the surrounding environment. The CALPUFF air dispersion

model was used to predict the odour levels in the ambient air in the wider area around the

Proposal site.

The dispersion modelling results indicate that the predicted ground level odour concentrations

at the discrete receptors would be well below the 2 OU criteria. Figure 8-40 shows the 99th

percentile predicted nose-response average concentrations for the area immediately

surrounding the Proposal.

Figure 8-40 Predicted 99th percentile nose-response average ground level odour concentrations (OU) - – ‘Worst case’ daily putrescible waste (OU)

22 Clyde TT has an operational capacity of 500,000 tpa, while Banksmeadow TT would have an operational capacity of

400,000 tpa. The volumes of waste and odour emissions of the Clyde TT are therefore twenty per cent greater than

those predicted at the Banksmeadow TT.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The modelling shows dispersion modelling results indicate that the predicted ground level odour

concentrations would not exceed the applicable assessment criteria, even during the ‘worst

case’ scenario. All residential and commercial/ industrial receivers are within 0.3 OU 99th

percentile level, which is well below the 2 OU criteria applicable to the Proposal.

Additional odour mitigation and management measures that would be adopted at the

Banksmeadow TT site are described in Section 8.5.4, below.

Particulate matter impact assessment

The non-putrescible waste, which has some potential to generate dust, would be unloaded

within the southern end of the transfer building, whilst putrescible waste would be unloaded

within the northern end. The terminal building would be enclosed, with the exception of vehicle

access openings and the air extraction system. Dust generated from non-putrescible waste

would be managed by dust suppression systems located within the southern end of the transfer

building.



An Air Quality Management Plan would be developed as a subplan to the CEMP and would

contain the following management measures:

Burning off of materials would be strictly prohibited on-site.

Engines of on-site vehicles and plant would be switched off when not in use.

Construction machinery and vehicles on-site would be maintained and serviced according

to the manufacturer’s specifications.

During hauling activities, the following controls would be in place:

- Watering of unsealed haul roads

- Sealed haul roads to be cleaned regularly

- Restrict vehicle traffic to designated routes

- Impose speed limits

- Covering vehicle loads when transporting material off-site

During material handling activities the drop heights of materials from loading and handling

equipment would be minimised.

During construction activities requiring exposed surfaces and stockpiling the following

controls would be in place:

- Minimise area of exposed surfaces.

- Water suppression on exposed areas and stockpiles.

- Minimise amount of stockpiled material.

- Where possible apply barriers, covering or temporary rehabilitation.

- Rehabilitate completed sections as soon as practicable.

Operational Mitigation Measures

The Proposal incorporates key learnings from Veolia’s other waste management operations, in

particular the Clyde TT. Changes, following Veolia’s operational experience, which have been

introduced to improve odour control at the Clyde TT, have included:



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

A modification to air extraction systems, in response to clogging/blinding of filters in

original design

Surfacing to avoid leachate penetration and subsequent odour emission, into the

concrete tipping floor.

These, and other measures, have been adopted from the outset in this proposal. Veolia

continually reviews its waste operations to improve environmental performance and, as

necessary, undertakes alterations to operational management and facility design. The design

of the Banksmeadow TT facility does not preclude the introduction of additional odour control

measures in the future, in the unlikely event that they are required. Potential additional

measures may include:


Adjusting ventilation rates (at present the air extraction system has been over-designed to

accommodate this).

Any future implementation of additional odour management measures would be considered by

Veolia based on operational performance of the facility.

Further, the Proposal would include the following design features to mitigate the impacts on

odour and dust associated with operation of the Banksmeadow TT:

The putrescible waste side of the terminal building, including the compactor area would

be enclosed, with the exception of vehicle access openings and an air extraction system.

The air extraction system would service the putrescible waste area, within the northern

end of the building.

Dust generated from non-putrescible waste would be managed by dust suppression

systems located within the southern end of the transfer building.

The ventilation system for the putrescible waste area of the transfer terminal building

would have a single vent stack that would extend to a height of 21 m with a diameter of

2.6 m and be designed to have an exit velocity from the stack of 20 m/s to ensure that the

odour emissions from the facility achieve the odour criteria prescribed in the EPA Air

Quality Guidelines.

Plastic strips would be installed on the doorways to help contain odour and dust within

the terminal building, which would cover the upper third of the opening.

Containers used for the transport of putrescible waste would be specially constructed and

have activated carbon filtration packs fitted to the air exhaust vent on the container.

An Odour Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP and would include a

Procedure for Minimising Odour to ensure waste is managed to minimise the generation of

odours. The odour management strategies that would be implemented through the Odour

Management Plan would include:

A description of the odour control system and its components and an Odour Control

System Operation Protocol, detailing the activities required to maintain and operate the

odour control system.

Routine maintenance and cleaning of containers would not be permitted on the


Waste delivery trucks entering the terminal would be required to be fully enclosed or

covered.

Putrescible and non-putrescible waste stream would be kept separate.

The floor area of the transfer terminal would be cleaned daily.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The amount of putrescible waste left on-site within the terminal would be minimised.

An odour complaint logbook would be maintained on-site. When odour complaints are

received, a site investigation would be conducted to identify any unusual odour sources

within the site boundary and appropriate action taken as required.

Odour monitoring and reporting would be undertaken in accordance with the EPL

requirements for the facility.

A Dust Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP would document strategies

to minimise potential dust emissions from the Proposal’s operations. Both preventative and

responsive control measures would be identified in the plan, including:

All trucks entering and leaving the premises carrying loads must be covered at all times,

except during loading and unloading.

Good dust management procedures would be implemented within the terminal building

including regular sweeping and washing down, as required.

Good dust management procedures outside of the Terminal building, and the general

Site including regular sweeping to remove dust and other debris.

Training of all staff and personnel accessing the Site in the need to minimise dust

generation.

Use of a fine mist dust suppression system within the building, when there are particularly

dust loads or noticeable dust levels, as required.

Review of any complaints received relating to dust and reports from monitoring conducted

as a result.

Monthly toolbox meetings to discuss any safety and compliance issues, including dust,

that have arisen since the previous meeting.

Air quality and dust monitoring procedures would be outlined in the plan and monitored

with respect to the NSW Government Regional Ambient Air Quality and EPA criteria for

allowable dust deposition.

The components of the dust suppression system and the standard operational

procedures for Site personnel to operate and maintain the system would be documented

within the DMP.

CONCLUSION 8.5.5

Wilkinson Murray has undertaken an assessment of the potential air quality impacts associated

with construction and operation of the Proposal.

The assessment of potential dust emissions indicates that the scale of emissions generated

during the construction period and operation of the facility would likely be minor, and provided

that reasonable dust controls are implemented and managed in an appropriate manner, there

would not be any discernible effect at any off-site receptor above that for the existing levels.

Dispersion modelling has been used to predict potential off-site odour impacts from the potential

odour generating sources, in accordance with the Approved Methods for the Modelling and

Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (NSW DEC 2005). The dispersion modelling

results show that predicted ground level odour concentrations are unlikely to exceed the

applicable assessment criteria at the nearby residential receivers.





N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Odour emissions from putrescible waste: a ventilation system with a single stack

would be installed in the transfer terminal building to capture and disperse odour

emissions from the putrescible waste area, including the compactors and containers area.

Dust emissions from handling of putrescible and non-putrescible waste: a dust

suppression system that would emit a fine mist during dust generating activities within the

terminal building.

Dust emissions during construction of the Proposal: a Construction Air Quality

management plan would be developed for the construction phase of the Proposal that

would identify measures to minimise dust generation during construction, including the

use of water sprays during dust generating activities.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on air quality, and determined key risks

associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the residual risk for

air quality for construction and operation of the Proposal is considered to be low.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

8.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION

INTRODUCTION 8.6.1

Wilkinson Murray was engaged to undertake a noise and vibration assessment for the Proposal.

The complete Noise and Vibration Assessment Report is included as Appendix M to this EIS.

This Section summarises the assessment undertaken by Wilkinson Murray and identifies key

risks relating to noise and vibration as well as management strategies to mitigate them.

Background noise levels, including traffic and industrial noise levels, have been recorded to

determine the existing environment for the Site to enable the assessment of impacts associated

with construction and operation off the Proposal in accordance with the relevant EPA noise

impact assessment guidelines. Impacts that have been assessed in this Section include

construction noise and vibration impacts, operational noise impacts, potential sleep disturbance,

road traffic noise and rail noise. Each of these impacts has been assessed against relevant

noise assessment criteria, detailed in Section 8.6.3.

The key issues that have been identified for the Proposal for noise and vibration that are

assessed within the Section include:

Noise impacts on adjacent receivers from operation of the Proposal.

Noise impacts on adjacent receivers from trucks and trains accessing the Site.

Noise and vibration impacts on adjacent receivers during construction of the Proposal.

In accordance with the DGRs, this section provides a quantitative assessment of potential

demolition, construction, operational and road and rail transport noise and vibration impacts,

including potential impacts on nearby sensitive receivers.

Noise and vibration management and mitigation measures have been identified in Section 8.6.4

and include construction mitigation measures and operation mitigation measures. In addition

details and justification of the proposed noise management and monitoring measures are

provided.


Sensitive and other receivers within the vicinity of the Site are identified in Table 8-52, above. Of

the receivers identified in Table 8-52, the Hillsdale residential area was considered to be the

potentially most affected by operational and construction noise from the Banksmeadow TT.

Therefore a representative location on Denison Street (70 Denison Street) was selected for

long-term noise monitoring in order to determine the existing level of noise exposure to these

residents. Another location on Beauchamp Road was selected for long-term monitoring, to

establish existing road traffic noise exposure to residents located on this road, which has been

identified as a transportation route to the Site.

Noise loggers were deployed at the identified monitoring locations for a period of eleven days to

establish the long-term noise ambient noise levels. Additionally, attended noise monitoring was

undertaken during the night-time period of 15 October 2013 to supplement the long-term

monitoring in order to determine the extent of existing industrial noise exposure to the identified

receivers. All measurements were undertaken in general accordance with AS1055:1997:

Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise and the Industrial Noise

Policy (INP).



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Background noise levels

A summary of the daytime, evening and night-time rating background noise levels (RBLs)

derived from the unattended, long term logging on Denison Street are shown in Table 8-55.

Table 8-55 Summary of Rating Background Levels from unattended logging

Address Logging Period Day

(7.00am – 6.00pm)

Evening

(6.00pm – 10.00pm)

Night

(10.00pm – 7.00am)

70 Denison St 20 May to 30 May

2013 45 45

23 45*

Due to the influence of road traffic noise during the daytime, it was not practicable to quantify

the extent of existing industrial noise exposure to the residential receivers, particularly on

Beauchamp Road. Therefore, a further Site visit was undertaken during a night-time period, with

suitable meteorological conditions, to undertake attended background noise monitoring. A

summary of the attended noise monitoring results are shown in Table 8-56.

Table 8-56 Summary of attended noise monitoring results

Address Date and

Time

LA90,15mi

n (dBA)

LAeq,15min

(dBA)

LA1,15min

(dBA) Notes

70 Denison

St

15 October

2013,

11.32pm

46 65 85

The LA90 noise level was controlled by the operation of the Orica

site, which generated a relatively steady and continuous

broadband noise.

The LAeq and LA1 noise levels were controlled by vehicle

movements on Denison Street. 27 Light vehicle pass-bys

occurred, generating instantaneous noise levels in the range 68-

76 dBA; and 8 heavy vehicle pass-bys occurred, generating

instantaneous noise levels in the range 78-85 dBA.

Other sources of noise, which were observed to have no material

influence on the measured levels, included distant traffic and

fauna (insects and birds).

30

Beauchamp

Road

15 October

2013,

11.55pm

49 61 84

The LA90 noise level was controlled by distant industrial hum,

emanating from the direction of Port Botany (from the south and

south-west). The character of the noise was principally steady

and broadband, though various distant impact sounds were also

observed.


movements on Beauchamp Road. 17 Light vehicle pass-bys

occurred, generating instantaneous noise levels in the range 68-

84 dBA; and 2 heavy vehicle passbys occurred, generating

instantaneous noise levels in the range 79-84 dBA.




23 Evening and night-time RBLs of 46 dBA were determined by application of the INP calculation procedure. For the

purpose of this assessment, the evening and night-time RBLs have been conservatively reduced and assumed to be 45

dBA, consistent with the daytime RBL.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Address Date and

Time

LA90,15mi

n (dBA)

LAeq,15min

(dBA)

LA1,15min

(dBA) Notes

70 Denison

St

16 October

2013,

12.46am

46 66 93

The LA90 noise level was controlled by the operation of the Orica,

Botany Bay site, which generated a relatively steady and

continuous broadband noise.


movements on Denison Street. 9 Light vehicle pass-bys occurred,

generating instantaneous noise levels in the range 65-75 dBA;

and 7 heavy vehicle pass-bys occurred, generating instantaneous

noise levels in the range 79-93 dBA (the upper level occurring

due to a truck air-brake).




Due to the relatively steady and constant industrial noise observed to be emanating from the

Orica site, the background (LA90,15min) noise level of 46 dBA measured at 70 Denison Street is

considered to be typically representative of the LAeq industrial noise contribution at this location.

Further south, at 30 Beauchamp Road, other industrial activities located within the vicinity of

Port Botany precinct influenced the measured noise levels. The cumulative noise from these

activities was observed to be less steady than at 70 Denison Street. Given the temporal

variation in the industrial noise, it was estimated that the industrial noise contribution at 30

Beauchamp Road was approximately LAeq 51 dBA (i.e. 2 dB above the LA90,15min level).

Background traffic noise levels

Table 8-57 provides a summary of the measured daytime and night-time road traffic noise levels

derived directly from the unattended logging on Beauchamp Road. Traffic noise levels at this

location are pertinent as Beauchamp Road would be a key transport route for the Proposal.

Table 8-57 Summary of LAeq,Period traffic noise levels from unattended logging24

Address Logging Period Day

(7.00am – 10.00pm)

Night

(10.00pm – 7.00am)

30 Beauchamp Rd 20 May to 30 May 2013 68 dBA 63 dBA


As discussed in Section 3.6, the Proposal would reach its operational capacity over a period of

5 years, from 2015 to 2020. The noise impact assessment evaluated the noise impacts

associated with operation of the Proposal at design capacity of 400,000 tpa throughput of

putrescible waste and 100,000 tpa of non-putrescible waste.

Noise assessment criteria

Several guidelines were used to determine the appropriate noise impact assessment criteria for

the Proposal being:

24 The Road Noise Policy (considers daytime (7.00am 10.00pm); and night-time (10.00pm 7.00am).



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) (EPA, 2000): provides the framework and process for

deriving noise limit conditions for consents and licences issued by the EPA. The INP sets

guideline noise targets in order to provide assessment benchmarks for noise emitted by

commercial or industrial activities into the community. The INP attempts to provide a

balance between development and protecting the noise amenity of the community. The

INP is based upon extensive research into community reactions to noise and presents

two criteria for protecting the community against noise. These are the intrusive and

amenity criteria.

NSW EPA Road Noise Policy (RNP) (EPA, 2011): defines criteria to be used in assessing

the impact of road traffic noise from new developments.

NSW EPA Interim Guideline for the Assessment of Noise from Rail Infrastructure Projects

(IGANRIP) (EPA, 2007): specifies ‘trigger levels’, which are “non mandatory targets that

can be used to initiate an assessment of noise impacts and consideration of feasible and

reasonable mitigation measures”.

NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) (EPA, 2009): provides guidance to the

EPA in setting statutory conditions in licences or other regulatory instruments for

construction noise.

Amenity and intrusiveness criteria

The INP recommends two criteria, “Intrusiveness” and “Amenity”, both of which are relevant for

the assessment of noise. The intrusiveness criterion, applied to residential receivers, requires

that the LAeq noise level from the source being assessed, when measured over 15 minutes,

should not exceed the Rating Background Noise Level (RBL) by more than 5 dBA.

The amenity criterion sets a limit on the total noise level from all industrial noise sources

affecting a receiver. The amenity criteria aims to protect amenity noise levels by setting targets

that ensure the industrial noise contribution within an area does not exceed the amenity noise

levels in Table 2.1 of the INP. Different amenity criteria apply for different types of receiver (e.g.

residential, commercial, industrial) and different areas (e.g. urban, suburban, rural). The

suburbs of Banksmeadow, Hillsdale and Matraville are recognised as urban areas, in terms of

the receiver classifications identified by the INP.

Where noise levels from existing industrial sources are already close to or above the acceptable

amenity criterion, the INP requires that the acceptable amenity criterion for the any further

proposed industrial noise source is commensurately lowered, in the interest of preserving noise

amenity. This provision is aimed at the prevention against cumulative noise increases over

time, due to industrialisation.

The amenity noise criteria applicable to the Proposal are generally equal to the acceptable

amenity criteria prescribed in the INP, with the exception of the night-time criteria on Denison

Street. Given the high existing level of industrial noise experienced by receivers on Denison

Street (i.e. 46 dBA), the adjusted night-time acceptable amenity criterion for the proposed

development reduces to LAeq,10.00pm 7.00am 37 dBA. Adoption of this lower criterion provides for a

reasonable degree of conservatism in the noise impact assessment.

Project specific noise levels (PSNLs) reflect the most stringent noise level requirement from the

criteria, derived from both the intrusiveness and amenity criteria, to ensure that intrusive noise is

limited and amenity is protected.

The PSNLs applicable to the Proposal are presented in

Table 8-58.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-58 Project-specific noise levels

Receptor

Location

Intrusiveness Criterion

LAeq,15min dB(A)

Amenity Criterion

LAeq,Period dB(A)

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night

Residential

Receivers 50 50 50 50 40 37

Commercial

Receivers

n/a n/a n/a 65 65 65

Industrial

Receivers

n/a n/a n/a 70 70 70

As the Proposal would operate 24 hours a day, the controlling criterion for residential receivers, as shown in as shown in

Table 8-58, would be the nominated night-time amenity criterion (37 dBA). For the purpose of

the noise impact assessment, compliance with the night-time criterion implies compliance at all

other times and therefore represents the PSNL. The PSNL is relevant to the noise contribution

from the operation of the Proposal only, that is, excluding the contribution from the background

noise level, road traffic noise and other industrial sites.

Sleep disturbance criteria

The EPA’s “Application Notes – NSW Industrial Noise Policy” issued in July 2006, provide some

guidance on derivation of sleep disturbance criteria. The guidance note concludes that the

criterion prescribed in the NSW Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN) (EPA,

1999) of LA1,(1 minute) not exceeding the LA90,(15 minute) by more than 15 dB(A) is not ideal,

compliance with this criterion would mean that sleep disturbance is not likely.

Applying this criterion to the Proposal night time RBL of 45 dBA, the sleep disturbance

screening criterion when assessed external to dwellings is 60dBA LA1,1min. This criterion is only

applicable to night time (10PM to 7AM) operations.

Off-site traffic noise criteria

Criteria for off-site road traffic noise are specified in the RNP and are shown in Table 8-59. The

traffic route roads that have sensitive receivers located on them are all sub arterial / arterial

roads and therefore for the purpose of assessing likely future road traffic noise arising from the

Proposal the 60dB(A) LAeq,15hour (daytime) and 55dB(A) LAeq,9hour (night-time) assessment goals were

adopted for the assessment.

Table 8-59 RNP criteria for road traffic noise

Type of Development

Assessment Criteria – dB(A)

Daytime

(07:00-22:00)

Night

(22:00-07:00)

Existing residences affected by additional traffic on existing

freeways/arterial/sub-arterial roads generated by land use developments

LAeq,15 hour 60

(external)

LAeq,9 hour 55

(external)



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Type of Development

Assessment Criteria – dB(A)

Daytime

(07:00-22:00)

Night

(22:00-07:00)

Existing residences affected by additional traffic on existing local roads

generated by land use developments

LAeq,1 hour 55

(external)

LAeq,1 hour 50

(external)

Off-site rail noise criteria

The assessment of potential off-site rail noise impacts, the EPA’s IGANRIP was considered as

this guideline was specifically referenced in the DGRs. It is noted that this guideline has

recently been superseded by the EPA’s Rail Infrastructure Noise Guideline (2013) (RING), it

was determined that the adoption of either of these guidelines has no material influence on the

assessment outcome.

IGANRIP specifies ‘trigger levels’, which are “non mandatory targets that can be used to initiate

an assessment of noise impacts and consideration of feasible and reasonable mitigation

measures”. For residential receivers the noise trigger levels applying to absolute levels of rail

noise have two components, LAeq and LAmax. The LAeq contribution level of rail noise is

assessed over both day and night periods. The application of the LAmax descriptor for

residential land uses recognises that rail events are not adequately described solely by the LAeq

descriptor in terms of their effect on residential amenity and wellbeing. IGANRIP criteria

applicable to the Proposal are set out in Table 8-60.

Table 8-60 Airborne rail traffic noise trigger levels for residential land uses

Type of

Development

Day

(7am – 10pm)

Night

(10pm – 7am) Comment

Redevelopment of

existing rail line

Development increases existing rail noise

levels; and

resulting rail noise levels exceed:

An ‘increase’ in existing rail noise

levels is taken to be an increase

of 2 dB or more in LAeq in any

hour or an increase of 3dBA or

more in LAmax. 65 LAeq(15hr)

85 LAmax

60 LAeq(9hr)

85 LAmax

Construction traffic noise has also been assessed under these criteria.

Construction noise criteria

The daytime RBL determined at 70 Denison Street was used to establish Construction Noise

Management Levels for all residential receivers. The construction noise management levels set

out in Table 8-61 are applicable for normal hours of construction.

Table 8-61 Project-specific construction noise management levels

Receptor Location Rating Background

Level LA90 dB(A)

Noise Affected Level

LAeq,15min dB(A)

Highly Noise Affected

Level

LAeq,15min dB(A)

Residential Receivers 45 55 75

Commercial Receivers - 70 -

Industrial Receivers - 75 -



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Vibration criteria

Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DEC, 2006) provides guidance for assessing

human exposure to vibration. Table 8-62 sets out peak particle velocity (PPV) values for

continuous and impulsive vibration as specified by Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline.

The impulsive vibration goals are shown in brackets, which are most relevant to activities that

create up to 3 distinct vibration events in an assessment period, e.g. occasional dropping of

heavy equipment, occasional loading and unloading.

Table 8-62 Human comfort vibration goals – PCPV (mm/s)

Place Day (7.00am-10.00pm)

Preferred Maximum

Residences 0.28 (8.6) 0.56 (17.0)

Offices 0.56 (18.0) 1.1 (36.0)

Workshops 1.1 (18.0) 2.2 (36.0)

As there are currently no Australian standards or guidelines that provide criteria for assessment

of building damage due to vibration it is common practice to derive criteria from German

Standard DIN4150:1999, which provides goal levels, below which vibration is considered

insufficient to cause building damage. Table 8-63 shows the vibration; the most conservative

values have been adopted.

Table 8-63 Guideline Values for Vibration Velocity to be used when Evaluating the Effects of Short-Term Vibration on Structures (DIN4150-3:1999)

Type of Structure

Guideline Values for Velocity – PPV

(mm/s)

1 Hz to 10 Hz

Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial

buildings, and buildings of similar design 20

Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or occupancy 5

Noise impact assessment

Construction noise impact assessment

With consideration given to the construction staging discussed in Section 3.3, above, the

construction plant and sound power levels, set out in Table 8-64, were used to develop a ‘worst-

case’ construction phase scenario. For the scenario it was assumed that all the plant listed

would operate simultaneously and continuously, which is considered to be conservatively

representative of the typical worst case conditions.

Table 8-64 Indicative Sound Power Levels – construction equipment



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Stage Activity Equipment Quantity

Sound Power

Level per Item

LAeq,15min dB(A)

Sound Power

Level per

Activity

LAeq,15min dB(A)

1a Site Establishment

(Approx. 2 Weeks)

20 tonne trucks

Backhoe/loader

Static & vibratory roller

Mobile cranes

Delivery trucks

2

1

1

1

2

105

108

108

106

105

114

1b Demolition

(Approx. 18 Weeks)

20 tonne tip truck

Tracked excavator/hydraulic

hammer

Truck floats

Backhoe

Air compressor

Jackhammer

4

1

4

1

1

1

105

112

105

108

100

110

118

1c Clearing and Grubbing

(Approx. 1 Week)

Dozers

Tracked excavator

20 tonne tip trucks

20–40 tonne articulated tippers

Truck floats

2

1

2

2

2

110

110

105

105

105

117

1d

Contamination

Removal

(Approx. 1 Week)

Tracked excavator for tank pull

20 tonne tip trucks

Truck floats to remove UST

1

2

2

110

105

105

114

2a

Bulk Earthworks

(Approx. 12 Weeks)

Dozers

Scrapers

Tracked excavators

Graders

20–40 tonne articulated tip

truck

Water trucks

Vibratory and static rollers or

compactors

Truck floats to and from the

Site

2

1

1

1

6

1

1

1

110

116

112

116

105

105

114

105

122

2b

Stormwater Drainage

(Approx. 2 Weeks)

Backhoes or small excavators

20–40 tonne articulated tip

trucks

Delivery trucks (sand backfill,

pipes etc.)

Concrete agitator trucks

Air compressor

Compaction equipment

1

4

2

2

1

1

108

105

105

108

100

114

118



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Stage Activity Equipment Quantity

Sound Power

Level per Item

LAeq,15min dB(A)

Sound Power

Level per

Activity

LAeq,15min dB(A)

2c

Utility Services

(Approx. 2 Weeks)


20 tonne tip / trucks (road)

Delivery trucks (sand backfill,

pipes etc.)


Air compressor

Compaction equipment

1

2

2

1

1

1

108

105

105

108

100

114

117

3a

Pavement and

Hardstand

Construction

(Approx. 4 Weeks)


Static and vibratory rollers

20 tonne tip / trucks (road)

Delivery trucks (materials and

equipment)

Concrete agitators

1

1

4

2

1

108

108

105

105

105

115

3b

Construction of

Building Slab

(Approx. 4 Weeks)


Concrete pumping equipment

Air compressor

Concrete vibrators

Concrete saws

2

1

1

1

1

108

108

100

103

114

117

3c

Construction of

Transfer Terminal

(Approx. 12 Weeks)

Mobile cranes

Air compressor

Welder

Delivery trucks and low loaders

1

1

1

2

106

100

105

105

112

4

Rail Construction

(Approx. 2 Weeks)

Delivery trucks (materials and

equipment)

Mobile cranes

2

1

105

106 110

The outcomes of the construction noise modelling are shown in Table 8-65.

Table 8-65 Predicted Construction Noise Levels LAeq,15min dBA25

Receiver

Construction Stage Noise Affected

Management

Level

LAeq,15min dB(A)

1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a

Hillsdale

Residential

Receivers

38 42 41 38 46 42 41 39 41 36 34 55

25 Worst case construction noise levels, based on all the identified sources operating simultaneously and continuously,

are presented in the table. It should be noted that typically lower noise levels than presented would be expected for most

of the time.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Receiver

Construction Stage Noise Affected

Management

Level

LAeq,15min dB(A) 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a

Matraville

Residential

Receivers

40 44 43 40 48 44 43 41 43 38 36 55

Industrial

Units

Beauchamp

Rd

72 76 75 72 80 76 75 73 75 70 68 70

Goodman

Botany Bay

Industrial

Park

69 73 72 69 77 73 72 70 72 67 65 70

Toll

Shipping 56 60 59 56 64 60 59 57 59 54 52 70

Orica

Southland 71 75 74 71 79 75 74 72 74 69 67 75

Orica

Botany Bay 67 71 70 67 75 71 70 68 70 65 63 75

Botany

Building

Recyclers

71 75 74 71 79 75 74 72 74 69 67 75

Residential receivers

The results indicate that construction noise emissions would be expected to comply with ICNG

LAeq,15min 55 dBA noise management level at all times at all identified residential receiver

locations. Hence construction of the Proposal is not predicted to have any noise impacts on

residential receivers.

Commercial receivers

The noise modelling indicated that there is potential for exceedance of the LAeq,15min 70 dBA

noise management level at the closest commercial receivers located on Beauchamp Road and

McPherson Street, particularly so during the earthworks or other noisy activities undertaken

close to the Site entrances on Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street. These exceedances

would be expected to be for only a relatively short duration and any impact would be considered

to be relatively minor. For most of the time, when construction works would occur away from the

Site entrances construction noise levels are predicted to comply with the noise management

level.

Construction noise emissions were predicted to comply with LAeq,15min 70 dBA noise

management level at all times at the Toll Shipping site.

Industrial receivers

Results indicate the potential for exceedance of the LAeq,15min 75 dBA noise management level at

the Orica Southland site and the Botany Building Recyclers site, during the earthworks stage.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Given the industrial use of these sites, these exceedances are not considered significant and no

impacts on these neighbouring sites are anticipated.

Vibration impact assessment

Activities undertaken on the Site during construction may generate ground vibration. With

respect to the construction plant identified in Table 8-64, the highest levels of vibration would be

expected to occur during Construction Stages 1a, 2a and 3a, due to the use of a vibratory roller.

Somewhat lower levels of vibration may also arise with the use of an excavator mounted

hydraulic hammer and jackhammer during Construction Stage 1b. Table 8-66 shows the results

from vibration monitoring trials of vibratory rollers operating on high speed and high amplitude

settings, previously undertaken by Wilkinson Murray, which provide a guide to levels that may

occur during similar activities on the Proposal site.

Table 8-66 Measured vibration levels from vibratory rollers

Roller Peak Particle Velocity, PPV (mm/s)

5 m26

10 m 20 m 30 m

Multipac VV2504PD

Super Silenced –

25-tonne padfoot

8 6.177 3.311 1.558

HAMM3414 –

15-tonne smooth drum 5 3.552 2.000 0.906

Residential receivers

The assessment concluded that, given the substantial setback distances to the closest

residential receivers, any ground vibrations arising due to on-site activities would be

unnoticeable at these locations and significantly below the relevant guideline criteria for human

comfort and structural damage.

Commercial receivers

The closest existing commercial buildings, being the Goodman Botany Bay Industrial Park are

setback from the BTT site by at least 25 m. Any ground vibrations arising due to on-site

activities would be substantially reduced by this distance from the source and would be well

below the conservative building damage criterion of 20 mm/s adopted for the Proposal.

However, the expected level from vibratory rolling has the potential to exceed the human

comfort criterion recommended for offices (0.56 mm/s preferred and 1.1 mm/s maximum) at the

Goodman Botany Industrial Park.

Industrial receivers

The existing building located within the Botany Building Recyclers site is setback from the Site

boundary by an estimated 6 m and from the proposed terminal building by approximately 15 m.

Based on the levels identified in Table 8-66, no material risk of building damage from vibration

effects is anticipated for this closest structure, with respect to the adopted 20 mm/s criterion.

Table 8-66 indicates the potential for exceedance of the maximum human comfort criterion

recommended for workshops, when the roller is operated with approximately 20 m of the

building. However, given that the Site operates heavy machinery during normal operations it is

considered that the Site may tolerate a higher level of vibration.

26 Vibration level at 5m has been inferred by extrapolation.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Operational noise assessment

A scenario was developed for the purposes of assessing noise impacts associated with

operation of the Banksmeadow TT, which is considered to be conservatively representative of

the Proposal operating at a typical maximum condition. The noise sources shown in Table 8-67

were incorporated into the noise model. The traffic and train movements shown in Table 8-40

and Table 8-41 were adopted for the model.

Table 8-67 Summary of operational noise sources applied in model

Plant Type 27

Location

Sound Power

Level per

Item

(LAeq,15min

dBA)

Odour extraction fan noise Fantech 45kW

(or Similar)

Stack located to north-west of

putrescible area (stack opening at

21 m above ground level)

93

2 x Compactors SSI 4500 Behind putrescible waste area (to the

west) 112

1 x Front end loader CAT 966 Putrescible waste area 111

1 x Bobcat Melroe S630 Putrescible waste area 107

2 x Container handlers Terex

FDC450S4

Moving between the end of the

compactors and the container

stacking area and rail spur (i.e. the

northern portion of the Site)

110

1 x Excavator CAT 320 Non-putrescible area 107

1 x Front end loader CAT 966 Non-putrescible area 111

1 x Prime movers/ walking

floor trailers

TBC Loading zone next to the non-

putrescible area (to the north of the

terminal building)

90

1 x Sweeper McDonald

Johnston VT605 On-site roads 95

Putrescible waste truck

movements

Waste trucks Site access road (putrescible truck

route) 105

Non-putrescible waste truck

movements

Waste trucks Site access road (non-putrescible

truck route) 105

Non-putrescible semi-trailer

movements

22 t semi-trailer Site access road (McPherson Street

Non-putrescible semi-trailer route) 105

Staff light vehicle

movements

Car/Ute Site access road (to staff carpark) 73

Train movements 2 x 81-Class

locomotives

On-site rail siding 100

27 Estimated type and size of plant and equipment.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

It was conservatively assumed that all the identified on-site operational plant would operate

continuously and simultaneously. It should be noted this represents a worst case scenario in

terms of potential noise emissions from the Site and typically this condition would rarely occur

under normal operational circumstances.

The assessment also considered the noise impact scenario when a temperature inversion

occurs at night. Temperature inversions can increase noise levels at surrounding receivers by

the diffraction of sound waves from warmer upper layers of air.

Based on the above assumptions, worst case LAeq,15min noise levels were predicted at the

closest sensitive receivers during the daytime, evening and night-time. The results, including

assessment against the assessment criteria adopted for the Proposal, are provided in Table 8-

68. Noise contours for the night time scenario, with adverse meteorological conditions (i.e. a

temperature inversion with no wind) are shown in Figure 8-41.

Table 8-68 Predicted LAeq,15min operational noise levels28

Receiver

LAeq,15min (dBA) Noise Levels

Intrusiveness

Criteria LAeq,15min

(dBA)

Day/Eve/Night

Amenity Criteria

LAeq,Period (dBA)

Day/Eve/Night

Exceedance Neutral Meteorological

(Met) Conditions

Adverse

Met

Conditions

Day Eve Night Night

Hillsdale

Residential

Area

34 32 34 36 50 / 50 / 50 50 / 40 / 37 Nil

Matraville

Residential

Area

35 31 35 36 50 / 50 / 50 50 / 40 / 37 Nil

Industrial

Units

Beauchamp

Rd

61 53 59 60 n/a 65 / 65 / 65 Nil

Goodman

Botany Bay

Industrial

Park

58 54 57 58 n/a 65 / 65 / 65 Nil

Toll

Shipping 43 42 43 44 n/a 65 / 65 / 65 Nil

Orica

Southland 64 64 64 64 n/a 70 / 70 / 70 Nil

Orica

Botany Bay 65 64 65 65 n/a 70 / 70 / 70 Nil

28 The predicted LAeq,15min noise levels (with consideration to a typical worst-case scenario) are shown. The

LAeq,Period noise levels are estimated to be lower than the LAeq,15min levels by at least approximately 2-3 dB, due to the

intermittency of operational noise (and energy averaging) over the relevant daytime, evening and night-time periods. On

this basis full compliance with the INP intrusiveness and amenity criteria is predicted under all relevant meteorological

and operational conditions.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Receiver

LAeq,15min (dBA) Noise Levels

Intrusiveness

Criteria LAeq,15min

(dBA)

Day/Eve/Night

Amenity Criteria

LAeq,Period (dBA)

Day/Eve/Night

Exceedance Neutral Meteorological

(Met) Conditions

Adverse

Met

Conditions

Day Eve Night Night

Botany

Building

Recyclers

69 68 69 69 n/a 70 / 70 / 70 Nil

Figure 8-41 Predicted LAeq,15min operational noise contours night-time, adverse meteorological conditions (F Class Stability)

The results indicate that operational noise emissions from the Proposal would be expected to

fully comply with the relevant INP PSNL at all identified receivers during worst-case, maximum

operating conditions. Full compliance is predicted under both neutral and prevailing adverse

meteorological conditions. The assessment also concluded that given the existing background



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

noise levels experienced by the closest residential receivers to the Site, operational activities

would be expected to be rendered inaudible at these localities.

Sleep disturbance assessment

On-site operational activities that have potential to generate the highest (maximum) noise levels

include train movements/shunting on the rail sidings, container unloading and re-loading of the

train, container stacking within the external container storage areas, truck activities (braking,

horns and door slamming).

A scenario was developed for the purposes of assessing potential sleep disturbance impacts as

a result of the night time operations of the Proposal. The scenario adopted a ‘worst case’

operating scenario, where all the activities identified in Table 8-69 would occur simultaneously

at maximum sound power levels.

Table 8-69 Maximum Sound Power Levels applied in sleep disturbance assessment

Activity Location

Maximum Sound

Power Level per

Activity

(LA1,15min dBa)

Container stacking impact Container stacking area (18 m noise source

height considered) 120

Container loading impact Rail spur 120

Truck movement/horn29

Site access road (putrescible truck route) 120

Train shunting impact Rail spur (northern end) 118

Train shunting impact Rail spur (southern end) 118

Reversing alarm Container stacking area 110

The modelling results from this scenario indicate that, even in the unlikely event of all the

identified activities occurring simultaneously during the night and under adverse meteorological

conditions (as described above), the sleep disturbance criterion would be met. Table 8-70

shows the results of the modelling.

Table 8-70 Predicted LA1,1min noise levels

Receiver dBA LA1,1min Noise

level

Sleep Disturbance

criteria

Exceedance

Hillsdale Residential Receivers 57 60 Nil

Matraville Residential Receivers 55 60 Nil

The predicted noise levels are less than the 60 dBA screening criterion and materially lower

than the existing LA1 noise levels experienced by the receivers throughout the night, due to local

road traffic movements. It is also noted that the measured maximum noise levels due to road

29 Veolia undertook a series of truck noise measurements at its Clyde transfer terminal during September 2012, in

accordance with its Conditions of Development Consent. These measurements confirmed that no movements exceeded

the maximum noise level of 85 dBA LA1,1min at a reference distance of 7.5 m. The maximum sound power level applied

by this assessment has considered these measurement results



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

traffic typically exceeded 80 dBA LA1,1min throughout the night on Denison Street and

Beauchamp Road.

No sleep disturbance impacts are therefore predicted as a result of night-time operations on the

Proposal site.

Road traffic noise assessment

Table 8-71 shows the measures road traffic noise on Beauchamp Road assessed against the

road traffic noise criteria.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-71 Measured road traffic noise levels on Beauchamp Road

Address Logging Period

Daytime

Traffic

Noise

Level

LAeq,15 hour

Night-

time

Traffic

Noise

Level

LAeq,9 hour

Daytime

LAeq,15 hour

Criteria

Night-time

LAeq,15 hour

Criteria

Base Acute Base Acute

30 Beauchamp

Rd

20 May to 30 May

2013 68 63 60 65 55 60

As shown, the existing daytime and night-time road traffic noise levels already exceed acute

criteria on Beauchamp Road and exceedances of this order are considered likely along other

sections of the proposed arterial/sub-arterial routes where residences exist.

Given the relatively high existing traffic volumes identified in Table 8-34, the additional traffic

that would be generated during the construction and operational phases of the Proposal were

predicted not to result in a noticeable change in traffic noise levels on the surrounding road

network. The noise impact assessment concluded that a relative increase of less than 1 dB

would be anticipated on the proposed transport routes and therefore the potential for noise

impacts associated with the additional traffic movements is considered negligible in accordance

with the RNP.

Additionally, noise impacts associated with truck movements on McPherson Street were

considered unlikely, given the commercial/industrial nature of the existing sites.

Rail noise impact assessment

The proposed Banksmeadow TT would result in two additional daily movements on the Botany

Goods line (one to and one from the Banksmeadow TT). The noise impact assessment

concluded that these additional movements would not be expected to materially increase off-site

rail noise. A relative increase of less than 1 dB is predicted and therefore the IGANRIP trigger

level of a 2 bB increase would not be exceeded.



A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be developed as part of

the CEMP and would address the following items at a minimum:

Prior to use of vibratory rollers on-site, vibration trials would be undertaken on-site to

confirm that the use of vibratory rollers can comply with the maximum level of 1.1 mm/s at

the Goodman Industrial site and Botany Building Recyclers. This testing would consider

the recommendations of Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DEC, 2006), and

give due consideration to the vibration dose method described by the guideline. Should

trials indicate that maximum level for human comfort cannot be practicably achieved an

acceptable limit would be negotiated with the affected commercial sites and alternative

compacting methods would be considered. During the pre-construction trials stockpiles at

the Botany Building Recyclers would be visually monitored to ensure construction

activities do not compromise their stability.

The CNVMP would include a requirement to inform neighbouring commercial and

industrial receivers of the construction schedule and the timing of any particularly noisy

activities.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Where practicable, construction activities would be staged to provide quiet, respite

periods for commercial receivers.

All construction activities would have regard to the standard hours of 07:00 am to

06:00 pm Monday to Friday, and 08:00 am to 01:00 pm Saturday (with approval from

relevant authorities). Any works undertaken outside of these hours would be undertaken

in consultation with relevant authorities. Works outside these hours that may be permitted

would include:

- Any works which do not cause noise emissions to be audible at any nearby sensitive

receptors.

- The delivery of materials which is required outside of these hours as requested by

Police or other authorities for safety reasons. Local residents, commercial and

industrial premises would be informed of the timing and duration of approved works in

accordance with the notification provisions outlined in the CNMP.

- Emergency work to avoid the loss of lives, property and/or to prevent environmental

harm.

- Any other work as approved through the CNMP Process.

Training and awareness, which would include the following:

- Site awareness training/environmental inductions to provide instruction on noise

mitigation techniques/measures to be implemented during construction of the SIMTA

proposal.

- Working within approved hours.

- Working with noisy equipment away from sensitive receivers.

- Using noise screens and temporary barriers

- Maintaining plant and equipment.

- Turning off machinery when not in use.

- Limiting the “clustering" of noisy plant / processes.

Selection of quiet plant and processes wherever feasible and use of reversing alarms

such as “smart alarms” and “squawker alarms”.

Provision of temporary hoardings at the access points to the Proposal site on Beauchamp

Road and McPherson Street to mitigate noise impacts during works in proximity to the

access points.


Two operational noise management plans would be developed for terminal operations. A Noise

Management Plan – Terminal Operations (TNMP) would be developed to address noise

management for the terminal including waste delivery truck movements, mobile plant and fixed

plant on-site, including the compaction units and the extraction fan. The TNMP would include

the following:

Noise emission level checks.

Truck speed limits to minimise noise.

Unloading and compaction of the waste.

Training for operators regarding potential noise problems.

Procedures for noise measurement accompanied by meteorological measurements.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Instrumentation and measurement procedures.

Additionally, noise monitoring procedures for plant and equipment, and vehicles

emissions would be developed.

A Noise Management Plan – Rail Operations (RNMP) would be developed to prescribe

measures to minimise rail noise from the Proposal. The RNMP would include:

A Container Management Protocol, details measures to minimise container movements

on-site and would include:

Container handling management.

Loading and unloading of containers onto and from trains.

Rail movements relating to these containers on adjacent tracks.

Hardstand and track maintenance.

Control measures that would be addressed in the RNMP include the following:

Noise mitigation practices.

Plant and equipment measures to reduce noise impacts.

Scheduling of trains.

Physical Improvements.

As noted in Section 6.1.2, Veolia is aware of the Port Botany Noise Working Group and would

work with the EPA to provide support for the development of the Noise Abatement Strategy for

the Port of Botany Precinct by providing the EPA with any noise monitoring data collected for

the Proposal.

CONCLUSION 8.6.5

Wilkinson Murray has undertaken a noise and vibration assessment for the Proposal.

Operational noise emissions from the Site would be expected to fully comply with relevant

Industrial Noise Policy (INP) derived project specific noise levels at all identified receivers. Full

compliance is predicted under both neutral and prevailing adverse meteorological conditions.

During both construction and operation of the Proposal, road traffic and rail noise levels are

predicted to increase by less than 1 dB, complying with the relevant noise assessment criteria

under the RNP and IGANRIP.

Construction noise is not expected to exceed the ICNG criteria at any residential location,

however there is potential for exceedances at the closest commercial and industrial receivers.

This impact is considered to be low and best practice measures would be adopted by the

construction contractor to appropriately manage construction noise impacts on surrounding

businesses through the development and implementation of a Construction Noise and Vibration

Management Plan. No vibration impacts or structural damage is anticipated at residential or

commercial or industrial buildings as a result of construction of the Proposal.



Noise and Vibration impacts on adjacent receivers during construction works: High

levels of noise during construction may cause nuisance or harm to surrounding receivers.

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be developed as

part of the CEMP. This would include the requirement for provision of temporary hoarding

along McPherson Street and Beauchamp Road entries.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Noise impacts on adjacent receivers from Site Operations: Operational noise and

vibration in relation to loading, unloading, reversing vehicles, road and rail transport and

deposition of waste on the transfer terminal floor may have impacts on adjacent

receivers. An Operational Noise Management Plan for train operations and terminal

operations would be developed as part of the OEMP for the Proposal.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts from noise and vibration, and determined key

risks associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the residual

risk for noise and vibration for construction and operation of the Proposal is considered to be

low.

8.7 HAZARDS AND RISK

INTRODUCTION 8.7.1

A hazard and risk assessment was prepared by Hyder Consulting (2013) to assess the potential

hazards and risks associated with the Proposal in order to support the EIS. The assessment

report is included as Appendix N to this EIS. The assessment included:

Identification of existing hazards associated with the Site that may present hazards during

the construction phase.

Identification of the operational activities and processes to be undertaken at the


Assessment of the possible hazards and risks associated with the activities and

processes.

Identification of the mitigation measures and management controls to manage and

mitigate possible risks.

Key hazards and risks for the Proposal are identified in this Section, and include:

Hazards associated with surrounding land uses: the Proposal site is located adjacent

to the Botany Industrial Park, which is a large integrated petrochemical and chemical

manufacturing complex which may pose a risk to personnel at the Proposal site.

Occurrence of hazards on-site: potential risks associated with the operation of the

Banksmeadow TT include; chemical or pollutant spills, delivery of hazardous or

dangerous goods, fire/explosion within terminal building, receipt of hot loads and medical

emergencies.

Disturbance of asbestos during construction: existing on-site buildings, which would

be demolished as part of the Proposal contain asbestos containing material.

In accordance with the DGRs the hazard and risk assessment included completion of a

screening test in accordance with Applying SEPP 33 (P&I 2011) to determine whether a

preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) is required. This involved:

Identification of dangerous goods involved in the Proposal, the quantities of these goods

and the distance of the storage location relative to the Site boundary,

Determination of whether the Proposal would emit a polluting discharge which would

cause a significant level of offense, and hence require a licence.

Hazard and risk management and mitigation measures are identified in Section 8.7.4 and

include construction mitigation measures (including asbestos management) and operation

mitigation measures.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


As noted in Section 5, there are a number of land uses currently occurring on the Keith

Engineering site and the Asciano land. Given the variety of land uses, the quantities of

chemicals currently stored on the Proposal site are not known. Any chemicals on-site and

associated with existing Site operations would be removed from the Site prior to

commencement of construction of the Proposal.

Asbestos

An asbestos survey and qualitative risk assessment was undertaken on the buildings at the

Proposal site in 2002 (Hibbs & Associates, 2002). The survey identified that all the buildings on

the Keith Engineering site contain asbestos material and that, at the time of the survey the

asbestos containing materials were in a stable condition and did not present significant

asbestos-related health risk if left in place and maintained. The study recommended that

materials remaining in-situ be labelled in accordance with the requirements of Worksafe

Australia Model Code of Practice – How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace

(Safe Work Australia, 2011).

It has subsequently been observed that asbestos on-site has been labelled, in accordance with

the Code of Practice. It has also been observed that the asbestos guttering on the Site has

begun to deteriorate and no longer appears to be in a stable condition.


Assessment Approach

Land use

Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 4 Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning

(HIPAP No. 4) suggests risk assessment criteria to be considered when assessing the land use

safety implications of industrial development of a potentially hazardous nature. The guideline

can also be used to assess risk to proposed developments located within the vicinity of

potentially hazardous facilities. As the Proposal site is located within proximity of the BIP, which

has been identified as a major hazard facility, the criteria established in HIPAP No. 4 should be

considered in determining the suitability of the Site for the proposed use. As the Banksmeadow

TT site is located within an industrially zoned precinct and does not front onto any residentially

zoned land, the applicable criteria for land use safety planning are those for industrial land use.

Table 2 of HIPAP No. 4 prescribes an Individual Fatality Risk Criterion of 50 per million per year.

BIP have recently undertaken a quantitative risk assessment of the combined operations of the

Site which has been made publicly available on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure

website. A review of the Quantative Risk Assessment Summary Report: Botany Industrial Park

(Sherpa Consulting, 2012) shows that the individual fatality risk for posed by the BIP on the

Banksmeadow TT site is:

1 individual fatalities per million per year within the vicinity of the railway sidings.

0.5 individual fatalities per million per year within the vicinity of the transfer terminal

building.

It is therefore concluded that the Banksmeadow TT Proposal is compliant with the criteria for

land use safety planning and is an appropriate use of the Site.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Risk screening

As described in Applying SEPP 33 (P&I 2011) the first stage of determining the SEPP 33

procedural requirements, and in particular to determine if a PHA is required is to undertake the

screening tests, such as dangerous goods quantity/ distance thresholds. Hazardous materials

are substances falling within the classification of the Australian Code for Transportation of

Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Dangerous Goods Code).

Industries or projects determined to be hazardous or potentially hazardous require the

preparation of a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA) in accordance with Clause 12 of the SEPP

33. Table 8-72 shows the screening thresholds established in Applying SEPP 33 (P&I 2011)

and the quantity of dangerous goods that would be stored on-site.

Table 8-72 Quantities of dangerous goods assessed against screening thresholds

Chemical/

material

Maximum quantity

to be stored on-site

(estimated)

Dangerous

Goods Class

Storage location

and distance from

boundary

Screening

threshold/

potentially

hazardous region

Instant

hand

sanitiser

1.2 kg 3(III) Administration

building/ 5 m

5,000 kg

Agroshield

Universal

80 kg 2.2 – Non-

flammable non-

toxic gases

Maintenance car

port / 30 m

None prescribed

Compresse

d oxygen

80 kg 2.2 – Non-

flammable non-

toxic gases

Maintenance car

port / 30 m

None prescribed

Acetylene 40 kg 2.1 – Flammable

gases

Maintenance car

port / 30 m

100 kg

Diesel fuel 30,000 L C1: Combustible

liquids

Maintenance car

port / 30 m

None prescribed

The volumes of chemicals proposed to be stored on-site for machinery and vehicle maintenance

are well below the screening thresholds for their quantities that would trigger the requirement for

a PHA. The gases would be stored in the designated maintenance area of the Proposal site in

accordance with Australian Standard 4332-1995 The storage and handling of gases in cylinders

and Australian Standard 4289-1995 Oxygen and acetylene gas reticulation systems. The hand

sanitiser would be stored in the administration building of the Proposal site.

As a C1-Combustible liquid the 20,000 litres of diesel fuel is not considered to be potentially

hazardous when stored in a separate bund or within a storage area where there are no other

flammable materials stored. A self-bunded diesel tank compliant with Australian Standard 1940-

2004 The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids would be used for the

storage of the diesel. C1 combustible liquids are not classified as dangerous goods for road and

rail transport.

The risk screening therefore concludes that a preliminary hazard analysis is not required.


Demolition of the existing structures on the Keith Engineering site would require the disturbance

and removal of asbestos. Demolition of the structures would be undertaken in accordance with

the Model Code of Practice – How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace (Safe

Work Australia, 2011). To meet these requirements, a risk assessment would be undertaken by



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

a competent person of the Proposal site prior to removal of any asbestos material from the Site.

In accordance with the Model Code of Practice – How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the

Workplace (Safe Work Australia, 2011), the assessment must comprise review and summation

of all available information for the Proposal site, including the:

Asbestos risk assessment and risk register.

Review of the asbestos management plan.

Implementation of the asbestos management plan to date.

A confirmation of controls to be implemented where construction works would impact on

asbestos materials.

During construction small volumes of fuels and chemicals would be stored on the Proposal site

for use by machinery and equipment. There is potential for these substances to spill into the

surrounding environment during refuelling activities, transport and delivery if not managed

appropriately.

Operational risk assessment

The proposed methods of operation of the Banksmeadow TT, including treatment of putrescible

wastes and non-putrescible wastes, are described in Section 3.5. The following potential

hazards to the environment and/or public health have been identified in relation to the operation

of the Proposal:

Spills – liquid/solid (e.g. bursting hydraulic oils and potential loss of putrescible loads).

Fire/ explosion – electrical/chemical (e.g. fire from adjacent sites; fire in the waste trucks

entering the Site caused by hot material brought in with the waste, or through

spontaneous combustion of volatile material in the waste; or fire initiated on-site by

vehicle accident, equipment or by discarded matches or naked flames))

Disruption of operations.

Non-conforming waste, including the receipt of dangerous goods/hazardous substances

at the Site.

Health and respiratory pollution as a result of dusty loads.

Traffic accidents resulting from the interaction between heavy vehicles and pedestrians.

The transport and receipt of hot waste loads.

Structural damage to the terminal building as a result of the operation of trucks and heavy

machinery within the building.

Electrical faults, resulting in fire.

Equipment failure.

Table 8-73 provides a summary of the potential hazards identified as part of the operational risk

assessment, the risk associated with the hazard and the proposed mitigation strategy that would

be adopted to address the hazard, along with the relevant standard or guidance document that

would be used in the development of the procedure or engineered control.

Table 8-73 Hazard scenarios and consequences associated with the activities and facilities

Hazards/ Aspect Risk Management standards and

guidelines

Truck unloading of waste onto

floor of designated area:

Unsecure/ unstable/ overloaded

Falling objects, loss of control, vehicle

accident; impact on other

vehicles/plant/pedestrians

OEMP prepared in accordance with

AS 3745 - 2010 Planning for

emergencies in facilities



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


guidelines

loads Operators licensed and competent

Fire from release of hot loads




AS 1815: Maintenance of Fire

Suppression System and Equipment

AS 2419.1-2005 Fire hydrant

installations - System design,

installation and commissioning.

Use of front end loader to move

waste to the compactor

Vehicle accident; impact on other

vehicles/plant/pedestrians




Operators licensed and competent

Movement of containers from

terminal building to container

storage area

Uncontrolled container caused

by operator error

Impact with another container, container

handler or train/ truck, damage to container

seals, release of leachate





Stacking of containers

Unstable container load,

container handler failure, and/or

operator error, lower containers

misaligned.

Impact with equipment; impact on other

containers /pedestrians





AS 1851-2012 Routine service of fire

protection systems and equipment

Train loading via container

handler

Unstable container load,

misalignment with wagon due

to wagon movement

Impact injury, impact with other containers

during operation, impact with equipment, fire





AS 1851-2012 Routine service of fire

protection systems and equipment

Fire hydrants

Incident Response Plan and Spill

Response Procedure.

Truck loading with grapple arm

Unstable truck load

Impact injury, impact with equipment, fire





Diesel fuel (class C1): storage

and refuelling

Vehicle impact with storage

Fire, release of dangerous goods, skin

contact/ inhalation

AS1940:2004 The storage and

handling of flammable and

combustible liquids



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


guidelines

tank, fire, storage tank failure,

spills

Storage in a separate bund or within

a storage area where there are no

flammable materials stored.




Emergency Response Plan to be

included in the IRP, and to include

fire response procedure in

accordance with Appendix A, Fire

and Smoke Emergencies, .of the AS

3745: 2010 standard.

Appropriate PPE supplied and worn

Non-conforming waste Spills, exposure to hazardous substances Incident Response Plan to be

included in OEMP and to include a

Spill Management Procedure.

Dust generated from operating

equipment, vehicle movements

and bulk material handling

Respiratory health impacts (e.g. asthma), eye

and skin irritation

Enclosed terminal building

Air conditioned cabs for equipment

operating within terminal building

Sealed roads and regular cleaning

Covered loads

Dust Suppression System

Dust Management Plan to form part

of the OEMP.

PPE – eye protection and dust masks

Vehicle exhaust generated from

movement of trucks and front

end loader in the enclosed

terminal building

Respiratory health impacts (e.g. asthma), eye

and skin irritation

Vehicles maintenance to reduce

particulate discharge.

Odour Ventilation System.

Dust Suppression System


Microbial due to decomposition

of putrescible waste

Involves the formation of

moulds and other microbial

spores that can become

airborne when disturbed. The

speed of decomposition

depends on: the surface area;

aeration and moisture.

Respiratory health impacts (e.g. asthma)

Microbial contaminants including pollen and

microbial spores are a common trigger of

asthma.

Enclosed terminal building.


Waste Management Plan to form part

of OEMP.

Minimise residency time to reduce

mould formation in the refuse.

Gases/ odours due to the

decomposition of putrescible

wastes generate gases,

typically methane (CH4) and

Respiratory health impacts Enclosed terminal building


Odour Control System



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


guidelines

carbon dioxide (CO2)

(comprises 99%). Odour Management Plan to form part

of the OEMP and include the

following procedures:

Minimising Odour Procedure

Transfer Terminal Odour

Management

Operation and Maintenance

Manual for Odour Ventilation

System.

Complaint management system

Vehicle and machinery

maintenance

Fire

Fire or release of chemicals from Site. AS 4332-2004 The storage and

handling of gases in cylinders

AS 4289-1995 Oxygen and acetylene

gas reticulation systems

AS 1851-2012

Routine service of fire protection

systems and equipment

Incident Response Plan to be

included in OEMP and to include a

Spill Management Procedure.

Emergency Response Plan to be

included in the IRP, and to include

fire response procedure in

accordance with Appendix A, Fire

and Smoke Emergencies, .of the AS

3745: 2010 standard.

The adoption of the proposed management standards listed above would minimise the

operational hazards associated with the Proposal.


Construction

The following mitigation measures would be employed during construction of the Proposal to

minimise hazards and risks:

Construction would be undertaken in accordance with the Work Health and Safety (WHS)

Act 2011.

Safe operational access and egress for emergency service personnel and workers would

be provided at all times, and specified in the CEMP.

An asbestos management plan would be developed for the proposal containing a risk

assessment undertaken in accordance with Model Code of Practice – How to Manage

and Control Asbestos in the Workplace (Safe Work Australia 2011).

Where the management plan recommends the removal of asbestos from Site all works

would be undertaken in accordance with the Model Code of Practice – How to Safely

Remove Asbestos (Safe Work Australia 2011), including the development of an asbestos



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

removal control plan and an emergency plan. An industrial hygienist would be involved in

the development of this plan.

Veolia would engage a contractor who is appropriately qualified and competent to ensure

appropriate management of asbestos as outlined in the Model Code of Practice –

Storage and handling of Dangerous Goods (Safe Work Australia 2011).

The WorkCover Authority of NSW (WorkCover) would be notified in writing five days

before any licensed asbestos removal work is commenced. The notification would be

lodged by the licensed asbestos removalist. The Site would be classified as friable or

non-friable by a suitably qualified occupational hygienist prior to the notification being

prepared.

The CEMP would include an Incident Response Plan that would include a Spill

Management Procedure.


An OEMP, and supporting specific management plans, would be developed to minimise the

likelihood of an incident occurring. The operational procedures to manage the risks associated

with activities on the Site would include the following key documents:

Incident Response Plan (IRP)

The emergency response and incident management protocols outlined in the IRP would

be developed in accordance with AS 3745 - 2010 Planning for emergencies in facilities

would cover the following types of emergency or incident:

Workplace health and safety.

On-site spills or leaks.

Off-site discharges.

Hazardous materials/dangerous goods.

Flooding.

Fire.

Derailment.

Container fall.

Road incidents.

Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which would form an appendix to the IRP:

In the event of an emergency or incident, the general management strategy that would be

adopted in the ERP to minimise the risk to the public and all personnel in the event of an

emergency would include:

Providing adequate resources including staffing and fire fighting equipment.

Ensuring that all relevant employees would be familiar with the PIRMP.

Training staff so that a high level of preparedness would be maintained by all

people who could be involved in an emergency.

Periodic review and update of emergency procedures for the Site.

A PIRMP would be prepared for the facility to meet the requirements of the POEO Act

and POEO (General) Regulations and would be incorporated into the IRP for the facility.

This PIRMP would outline the protocol to immediately notify the following agencies in the

event of an emergency or incident which is determined to have caused or threatened

material harm to the environment:



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

EPA.

Fire & Rescue.

NSW Health Department - Public Health Unit.

WorkCover NSW.

Botany Bay City Council.


The following design elements would be incorporated into the detailed design of the

Banksmeadow TT to minimise the risk associated with operation of the terminal:

Hazards associated with construction of the Banksmeadow TT would be managed

through the Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), which would be undertaken as part

of the detailed design.

Appropriate fire alarms and fire fighting equipment would be provided on-site for an initial

emergency response and would include a deluge system, fire extinguishers, hoses and

reels. It would be ensured that utility services are adequate to meet the needs of fire

fighters.

A fire hydrant system and/or foam from portable units, as well as a manually operated fire

deluge system, would be provided for mitigating fires on the tipping floor.

A designated area would be identified within the putrescible and non-putrescible areas of

the terminal building for the management of ‘hot loads’ and fire. These would be

contained through a combination of dousing with fire hoses and discharging the contents

and totally extinguishing the fire using on-site fire hose reels. The fire water would be

captured within the building bunding and leachate tank.

CONCLUSION 8.7.5

This Section outlines the potential hazards and risks associated with the Proposal. A screening

test was undertaken for the Proposal, in accordance with Applying SEPP 33 (P&I 2011) which

concluded that chemicals or hazardous materials would not be stored at the site in quantities

that would pose a hazard and a preliminary hazard analysis was not required for the Proposal.



Hazards associated with surrounding land use: The BIP Quantitative Risk

Assessment was reviewed and the Proposal site is outside the Individual Fatality Risk

Criterion, prescribed in HIPAP No. 4. It is therefore concluded that the Banksmeadow TT

Proposal is compliant with the criteria for land use safety planning and is an appropriate

use of the Site.

Occurrence of hazards: A number of potential hazards to the environment and/or public

health have been identified in relation to the operation of the Proposal; including spills,

fires/explosion, disruption of operations, non-conforming waste, health and respiratory

pollution, traffic, structural damage and electrical or equipment failure. An Incident

Response Plan (IRP), Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and Pollution Incident Response

Management Plan (PIRMP) would be developed for both construction and operation of

the Proposal and would be incorporated into the IRP for the Site.

Disturbance of asbestos during construction: Construction would be undertaken in

accordance with the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act 2011. An asbestos management

plan would be developed for the proposal containing a risk assessment. Where removal



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

of asbestos is required, works would be undertaken in accordance with the Model Code

of Practice – How to Safely Remove Asbestos and WorkCover NSW would be notified

five days prior to demolition and removal works commencing. Veolia would engage a

contractor who is appropriately qualified and competent to ensure appropriate

management of asbestos as outlined in the Model Code of Practice for asbestos

management.

This Section has assessed the potential hazards and risks from the Proposal. With the

mitigation measures identified above, including asbestos management, the residual risk for

hazards and risks has been considered to be low to moderate.

8.8 GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION 8.8.1

A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment has been undertaken by Hyder Consulting for

the development of the Banksmeadow TT. The complete assessment report is included in

Appendix O with a summary provided in the following Section. This Section includes

identification of the existing environment, including an analysis of the waste sector’s contribution

to GHG emissions. The Proposal has been assessed to determine approximate GHG emissions

generated as a result of construction, operation and mitigation measures. The Proposal has

also been assessed against the scenario where it does not go ahead, the ‘Business as Usual’

scenario, to determine the change in emissions resulting from the Proposal. Key issues have

been identified for the Proposal associated with GHG emissions, including:

Construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions: emissions associated with

construction and operation of the Proposal.

Emissions from the decomposition of waste: the Proposal would result in the transfer

of waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site that comprises the Mechanical and Biological

Treatment (MBT) and Bioreactor, which have both been designed to minimise GHG

emissions from decomposition of waste.

A quantitative assessment of the potential scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions of the

Proposal, and a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of the emissions on the

environment have been undertaken to assess these key issues and in line with the DRGs for

the Proposal.

Mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from both construction and operation of the

Proposal have also been identified in Section 8.8.4. A description and evaluation of the

feasibility of the measures proposed has also been provided, in response to the DGRs.


Existing accounts of greenhouse gases provided by the former Department of Industry,

Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary estimate that approximately 562.4

Mega tonnes (Mt) CO2-e were emitted in Australia during the 2010–11 financial year.

A significant by-product of waste disposal is gas emissions into the atmosphere. When organic

waste decomposes in landfills, it releases methane and other greenhouse gases (ABS, 2013c).

The waste sector accounts for around 3 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. In

2010–11, the waste sector in NSW accounted for 31.5 per cent of total national greenhouse gas

emissions for the sector.

When biogenic material decomposes in an aerobic environment, carbon dioxide (CO2) gas is

produced. CO2 released as this material decomposes is generally considered to have no net



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

impact on global warming. However, the decomposition of waste in anaerobic conditions, such

as those created in most landfills, generates methane (CH4), which is also a GHG. Methane is

21 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its global warming potential. Methane emissions are

therefore multiplied by 21 to calculate CO2-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions.

GHG emissions associated with decomposition of waste

The GHG Assessment calculated the GHG emissions associated with continuing current

practices of waste management, with no additional action to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions.

The putrescible waste that would be handled by the Proposal is currently sent to landfill within

the Sydney region. For the purposes of the assessment it was assumed that Sydney landfills

have a maximum capacity to capture 75 per cent of emissions from decomposing waste. The

NGA Factors (DIICSRTE, 2013) were applied to calculate lifetime emissions of waste directed

to landfill, in the absence of the Banksmeadow TT project.

The lifetime GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of 400,000 t of putrescible

waste (160,000 t of municipal and solid waste and 240,000 of commercial and industrial waste)

is shown in Table 8-74.

Table 8-74 Business as usual lifetime GHG emissions from waste decomposition in landfill

Emission sources Scope 1 emissions (t CO2-e)

Decomposition of municipal solid waste (160,000 t) 48,000

Decomposition of commercial and industrial (240,000 t) 120,000

Total 168,000

The non-putrescible waste that would be handled at the Banksmeadow TT is currently

processed at the Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility. It has been assumed that the waste

handled at this facility would be transferred to the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre, once it

is operational. Table 8-75 shows the emissions associated with transfer of the waste to the

proposed Camellia Recycling Centre.

Table 8-75 Greenhouse Gas emissions from non-putrescible waste transportation

Emissions sources Scope 1 emissions

(t CO2-e)

Scope 3 emissions

(t CO2-e)

Transportation of non-putrescible waste from

Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility to the

proposed Camellia Recycling Centre

116.68 n/a

Assessment Approach

The GHG assessment was prepared in accordance with the general principles and procedures

of:

The World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development

(WRI/WBCSD) The Greenhouse Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting and Reporting

Standard Revised Edition (WRI/WBCSD, 2004)

National Greenhouse and Energy reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008

The Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and

Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE) National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Measurement: Technical Guidelines for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

by Facilities in Australia (NGER Technical Guidelines) (2013a).

DIICCSRTE National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors (2013b).

Assessment boundary

Emissions from construction have not been considered as part of this assessment on the basis

that they are likely to account for a very small proportion of total emissions. The assessment

accounted for the following operational emission sources:

Energy demand waste management at the Banksmeadow TT (Scope 1 and 2)

Increase in energy demand at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site (Scope 1 and 2)

Fuel consumption for the transportation of non-putrescible waste to the Camellia

Recycling Centre and the putrescible waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site (Scope 1

and 3)

Lifetime emissions of putrescible waste decomposition (Scope 1)

The GHG assessment in Appendix O further outlines the methodology of the assessment and

details the exclusions and assumptions that have been made.

Emission scopes

Emissions have been separated into Scopes 1, 2 and 3 in accordance to the GHG Protocol.

These scopes are defined as follows:

Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions defined as those emissions that occur from sources

that are owned or controlled by the entity (in this case Veolia).

Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased

electricity, heat or steam.

Scope 3: Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased

materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by

the reporting Veolia, electricity-related activities not reported in Scope 1.


GHG Emissions

Construction Impacts

The direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) generated during the construction phase of the Proposal

would originate from the combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Diesel would be the

primary fuel used in construction equipment such as delivery trucks and cranes. Emissions from

electricity use (Scope 2) are expected to be negligible as construction is predominantly fuel

based. Indirect emissions (Scope 3) would be present in the form of embedded emissions

associated with the construction material e.g. steel and concrete.

The overall energy consumption during the construction phase is considered minimal and would

be confined to a limited period of time and, therefore, the GHG emissions impacts have been

considered one-off emissions. Hence, GHG emissions associated with the construction phase

have not been quantified.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Operational Impacts

Putrescible waste decomposition

Putrescible waste from the Banksmeadow TT would be transported to the Woodlawn Eco-

Project site. At peak capacity it is expected that 240,000 tpa of C&I waste transported from the

Banksmeadow TT would be processed in the Bioreactor facility in the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site. The Bioreactor facility has been designed to maximise the capture of greenhouse gases

from the decomposition of waste, which is then converted to electricity, reducing the escape of

greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The landfill gas capture rate of 75 per cent was

adopted for the assessment.

160,000 tpa of MSW waste would be sent from the Banksmeadow TT to the Woodlawn MBT,

which has the potential to divert up to 60 per cent of waste processed from landfill. This diverted

waste would be processed into a compost product for mine site rehabilitation. The facility has

the capacity to create stabilised compost, and it is likely that this material would have minimal or

no associated greenhouse gas emissions. However, for the purpose of this assessment a

decomposition rate from compost, based on the NGA Factors (DIICCSRTE 2013c) has been

applied to create a conservative estimate and a diversion rate of 60 per cent was adopted for

the assessment. The remaining 40 per cent of waste would be transferred to the Bioreactor.

Table 8-76 shows the predicted GHG emissions that would result from waste management as a

result of the Banksmeadow TT operations. Based on a throughput of 400,000 tpa of putrescible

waste it is estimated that decomposition of waste transferred from the Banksmeadow TT to the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site would produce approximately 80,016 t CO2-e.

Table 8-76 Greenhouse Gas emissions from waste decomposition as a result of Banksmeadow TT Operations

Source Scope 1 emissions (t CO2-e)

Waste decomposition –Bioreactor 66,000

Waste decomposition - compost output from MBT 4,416

Waste decomposition - residuals from MBT 9,600

Total 80,016

Energy demand

The Proposal would generate on-site electricity demand associated with the buildings (including

lighting, offices, security cameras and ventilation) and the use of machinery (including the

weighbridge, compactors, water pumps and overhead cranes). Electricity for buildings and

machinery represent a source of Scope 2 emissions.

In addition to electrically powered machinery, the handling, sorting and compacting of

putrescible and non-putrescible waste on Site would require the use of a range of fuel powered

machinery. These machinery types are expected to use Biodiesel B20 blend, which are

assessed as Scope 1 emissions. Table 8-77 shows the scope 1 and 2 emissions associated

with energy demand for operation of the proposed Banksmeadow TT.

Table 8-77 Annual greenhouse gas emissions generated from on-site operations.


(t CO2-e)

Scope 2 emissions

(t CO2-e)

Front end loader (1) 1.01 n/a

Sweeper 0.02 n/a



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


(t CO2-e)

Scope 2 emissions

(t CO2-e)

Container Handler 0.75 n/a

Bobcat 0.2 n/a

Excavator 0.45 n/a

Front end loader (2) 0.34 n/a

Electricity consumption n/a 2,568.29

Total 2.59 2,570.88

Waste transport

GHG emissions associated with transport of putrescible waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site

and transport of non-putrescible wastes to Camellia Recycling Centre are shown in Table 8-78.

Table 8-78 Greenhouse Gas emissions from the transport of waste


(t CO2-e)

Scope 3 emissions

(t CO2-e)

Transport of non-putrescible waste from

Banksmeadow TT to Camellia

116.68 n/a

Transport of putrescible waste from

Banksmeadow TT to Crisps Creek (Woodlawn)

n/a 1.02

Transport of putrescible waste from Crisps

Creek (Woodlawn) to Woodlawn Eco-Project

site

n/a 12.88

Total 116.68 13.90

Transportation of waste from the Banksmeadow TT to the Camellia Recycling Centre would

generate direct GHG emissions of 116.68 t CO2-e (Scope 1) per annum. Indirect emissions

(Scope 3) of GHG would occur from the transportation of waste from the Crisps Creek

Intermodal Facility to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site in third party vehicles. These emissions

were estimated to be 12.88 t CO2-e, while Scope 3 emissions from the transportation of waste

from the Banksmeadow TT to the Crisps Creek terminal by rail were estimated to be

1.02 t CO2-e; equating to total Scope 3 emissions associated with the transport of the waste of

13.90 t CO2-e (Scope 3).

Total direct and indirect GHG emissions from the transportation of waste have been estimated

approximately 130.57 t CO2-e per annum.

Other operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Banksmeadow TT would

include energy demand associated with waste handling at other Veolia owned facilities,

including Crips Creek and Woodlawn, as a result of the development of the Proposal.

Table 8-79 summarises the estimated operational emissions for the Proposal when operating at

full capacity and Figure 8-42 shows the breakdown of emission sources.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-79 GHG emissions - operations

Source Total emissions

(t CO2-e)

Energy demand from Banksmeadow TT 2,570.88

Putrescible and non-putrescible waste transport 130.58

Increased energy demand at Woodlawn from putrescible

waste management

2,554.51

Putrescible waste decomposition 80,016

Total 85,271.96

Figure 8-42 Operations based emissions breakdown by source for 2020 (peak capacity)

In comparing the Proposal emissions to the waste sector emissions, the Proposal represents

0.0052 per cent of the emissions of the total waste sector and 016 per cent of the NSW waste

sector emissions. Accordingly, the contribution of the project to Australia’s annual GHG

emissions has not been considered significant.


The emissions associated with handling of 100,000 tpa of non-putrescible waste at the Port

Botany Resource Recovery Facility is equal to those at the Banksmeadow TT, therefore a

calculation of emissions associated with the non-putrescible waste was not performed.

Comparison with existing waste management practices

The changes in waste management as a result of diverting putrescible waste to the Woodlawn

Eco-Project site presents an opportunity for GHG emission reductions that would not otherwise

occur if the Banksmeadow TT was not constructed.

2,570.88 t CO2-e 130.57

tCO2-e

80,016.00 t CO2-e

2,554.51 t CO2-e

Energy demand from BTT

Waste transportation

Waste decomposition

Increased energydemand at Woodlawn



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Non-putrescible waste that would be transferred to the Banksmeadow TT is presently

processed directly at the Port Botany Resource Recovery Facility. An assumption has been

made that in a BAU scenario this facility would remain operational. Emission from operations of

the Port Botany facility have been assumed to be equivalent to those of the Banksmeadow TT

and have not been considered within this assessment, presenting a conservative estimate of

GHG emissions.

The lifetime GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of 400,000 t of putrescible

waste (160,000 t of MSW and 240,000 of C&I) is listed in Table 8-74.

Table 8-80 Business as usual lifetime GHG emissions from waste decomposition in landfill

Emission sources Pre-Proposal scenario Post-Proposal scenario

Scope 1 emissions (t CO2-e) Scope 1 emissions (t CO2-e)

Decomposition of municipal solid

waste

48,000 14,016

Decomposition of commercial

and industrial

120,000 66,000

Total 168,000 80,016

Based on a throughput of 400,000 t of putrescible waste, it is estimated that decomposition of

waste transferred from the Banksmeadow TT to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site would produce

approximately 80,016 t CO2-e. Thus, the development of the Proposal represents an abatement

potential of 52 per cent of Scope 1 GHG emissions (87,984 t CO2-e) for each 400,000 t of waste

received at the Banksmeadow TT.

Figure 8-43 compares the existing waste management (business as usual – BAU) scenario

against the development of the Proposal, based on the ramp-up scenario for the Banksmeadow

TT in the coming years.

Figure 8-43 Estimated greenhouse gas emissions from waste decomposition – existing waste management scenario (BAU) vs. Proposal

As it can be seen, the Proposal would ultimately result in a saving of GHG emissions resulting

from waste decomposition of 87,984 t CO2-e for each 400,000 t of waste received at the

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

Ton

ne

s o

f C

O2-

e

Year

GHG emissions ina BAU scenario

GHG emissionswith thedevelopment ofthe BTT



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Banksmeadow TT. These projections are based on current technological standards, although it

is likely that technological improvement in the future will increase the efficiency of waste

management techniques for the expected lifetime of the Proposal.


Additionally the following mitigation actions have been identified as feasible measures to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from the project.


The mitigation measures that would be implemented onsite during construction of the Proposal

to minimise energy usage and the number of vehicles required include the following:

All trucks leaving the Site carrying waste would be filled to the maximum amount

allowable, depending on the truck size, to reduce the number of traffic movements

required

The contractor would limit idling time of plant and equipment whilst onsite

The contractor would make certain that the only lighting left on overnight around the Site

office would be security or emergency/access lighting

Earthmoving equipment and on-site vehicles would be fitted with exhaust controls in

accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation

2010.


Veolia is assessing the feasibility of efficient electricity consumption devices such as:

Variable frequency drive motor controls on the putrescible waste compactors: the variable

frequency drive system drive the compaction system delivering only the necessary

hydraulic pressure to achieve the specified putrescible waste bale density.

Light sensors for external lighting: essential external lighting would be fitted with a light

sensor, so that they would only turn on as the sun sets and turn off as the sun rises.

Timer switches: where appropriate, lights within the transfer terminal building would be

fitted with timer switches.

Energy efficient lighting: lighting installed at the Banksmeadow TT site would meet the

product and performance specifications under DesignLights or US Energy Star rating

schemes.

Veolia has also assessed the feasibility of using biodiesel B20 for the machinery energy

demand at the Banksmeadow TT. Biodiesel is a form of diesel fuel manufactured from

vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel can be used in its pure

form (B100) or blended with petroleum diesel. Common blends include B2 (2% biodiesel), B5,

and B20. Biodiesel fuel blends are often promoted as a means of reducing GHG emissions

relative to the use of conventional petroleum-based diesel. Biodiesel B20 has been probed with

a GHG emissions benefit of 246.9 grams per kilogram of t CO2-e (The Green Truck Partnership,

2011). This GHG emissions reduction has already been considered in the forecast of emissions

and represents a total annual saving of 462.98 tCO2-e.

In summary, Veolia commits to adopting the following energy saving measures, where feasible,

for operation of the Banksmeadow TT facility, to minimise GHG emissions:

Assess the feasibility of efficient electricity devices such as variable speed drives and

installation of energy efficient lighting.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Use of B20 biodiesel for diesel powered machinery on Site.

CONCLUSION 8.8.5

This Section outlines the potential GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of

the Banksmeadow TT. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk and


Operational greenhouse gas emissions:T he total GHG emissions associated with the

operation of the Project at full operational capacity are expected to be 85,271.96 t CO2-e

per year (81,662.19 t CO2-e Scope 1, 13,903.23 t CO2-e Scope 2 and 13.90 t CO2-e of

Scope 3 emissions. Annual emissions from the Project represent approximately 0.0002

per cent of Australia’s total annual GHG emissions. Veolia has committed to the use of

B20 biodiesel for diesel powered machinery on-site.

Emissions from the decomposition of waste: The Proposal has the potential to reduce

net GHG emissions by diverting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) waste from landfill to be

processed at the Woodlawn Eco-Project site. The assessment concluded that the

proposal would ultimately result in a saving of GHG emissions resulting from waste

decomposition of 87,984 t CO2-e for each 400,000 t of MSW waste received at the

Banksmeadow TT.

This Section has assessed the potential for the Proposal to produce GHG emissions.

Contribution of the Proposal to Australia’s annual GHG emissions has not been considered to

be significant. Furthermore, redirecting waste through the Banksmeadow TT to the Woodlawn

Eco-Project site will offer an abatement opportunity with regard to the decomposition of waste

when compared to a ‘business as usual’ scenario. The residual risk associated with GHG

emissions has been considered low.

8.9 LAND USE

INTRODUCTION 8.9.1

Land use impacts associated with the Proposal have been identified and assessed and are

summarised in this Section. The existing use and current zoning of the Site have been identified

to determine the Site suitability. A key risk identified for the Proposal is that the Site may be

incompatible with surrounding land uses. To assess this risk, and to satisfy the DGRs this


Details on the suitability of the Site for the proposed development.

Justification for the proposed site layout.

An assessment of the Proposal in terms of consistency with strategic land use plans.

Mitigation measures identified for land use impacts are outlined in Section 8.9.4 and include

design provisions to facilitate future land uses.


As discussed in Section 4, the proposed site of the Banksmeadow TT is currently occupied by a

number of industrial land uses, including an engineering manufacturing plant and a railway

container yard. The site contains several other smaller sheds and store buildings, currently used

for industrial and small scale commercial purposes. The engineering manufacturing plant is a

relatively large structure, occupying a space 129 m in length and up to 27 m in width, covering



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

an area of approximately 2820 m2. Other structures on site include the engineering store,

covering an area of 920 m2 and the engineering factory, covering an area of 920 m

2. The total

area of the site covered by building footprint is equal to approximately 4,000 m2.

Under the SEPP (Port Botany) the site is zoned IN1 – General Industrial and is located within

the Banksmeadow Industrial Precinct. The adjoining land uses are consistent with the zoning,

all being of an industrial or commercial nature.

Section 4, above, provides further detail on the existing on-site and surrounding land uses,

highlighting the high presence of industrial uses. These include the Botany Industrial Park to the

north and east, the Asciano Botany Site to the east, the Goodman Industrial park to the south,

further industrial buildings to the east and the freight line and Port Botany Rail Yards into Port

Botany to the west.

The nearest residential land use area is located approximately 250 m to the north-east of the

Proposal site, within the suburb of Hillsdale. The residential area of Matraville is located

approximately 350 m to the east of the Site. Both areas are highly residential with high

population densities.


Site suitability and zoning

Under the existing site zoning, development of waste or resource management facilities is

permissible with consent. Section 5.1 outlines the specific objectives of this zone; the

Banksmeadow TT would be consistent with the aims to provide a wide range of industrial and

warehouse land uses, encourage employment opportunities, enable development that is

supportive to other industrial uses and is consistent with the principles of ecologically

sustainable development (see Section 9.2). The Proposal would also be consistent with the

objectives of the Botany Bay LEP and Botany Bay DCP, as discussed in Section 5.2, notably by

encouraging economic growth and development while recognising the importance of Botany

Bay as a gateway to Sydney.

The Site is located in industrially zoned land under the SEPP (Port Botany), falling outside the

area zoned SP1 - Special Activities. The objectives for the area zoned SP1 include:

To maximise the use of waterfront areas to accommodate Port facilities

To provide for Port related facilities and development that support the operations of Port

Botany and Port Kembla.

The Banksmeadow TT site lies to the east of the outer boundary of the SP1 zoned area and

would therefore not inhibit the operation or future development of Port related facilities. Instead,

the Site is located within the IN1 – General Industrial zoned area and is consistent with the

objectives for this zone.

The Proposal is not only consistent with land use zoning within the area but enables the future

facilitation of further industrial growth. The provision of a waste transfer terminal, capable of

servicing the Southern Sydney region, would provide current and future commercial and

industrial uses with access to waste management facilities. The provision of services by the

Banksmeadow TT would provide greater competition and choice within the region, while

facilitating recycling of industrial waste. This allows for the greater provision of a wide range of

industrial and warehouse land uses; a primary objective for the area under the SEPP (Port

Botany).

The Banksmeadow TT would provide an industrial land use consistent with the existing land

use, the adjacent land uses and potential future land uses. The Goodman Botany Bay Industrial



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Park, to the south of the proposed site, for example, incorporates a series of four large

warehouse spaces ranging in size from 964m2 to 1,549m

2 in floor space. In relation, the

Banksmeadow TT would provide a compatible adjacent land use within a commercial and

industrial area. The nature of the structures within the boundary of the site would be relatively

unchanged, consisting of a single relatively large shed-like structure. The proposed transfer

terminal building would have a footprint of approximately 3,600 m2, representing a decrease in

the total area of the site covered by building footprints by approximately 400 m2.

In addition to compatibility with surrounding industrial land uses the Proposal is considered

compatible with surrounding residential land uses. As discussed in sections 8.5 and 8.6 air

quality and noise impacts, respectively, are not expected to impact residential receivers in the

nearby suburbs of Matraville and Hillsdale.

Air quality and noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposal have

been assessed against the relevant NSW EPA prescribed criteria, set out in sections 8.5 and

8.6, and found to be compliant with all criteria at the nearest residential areas. These guidelines

have been prepared by the EPA to ensure communities are protected against air quality impacts

and noise and vibration impacts, protecting the amenity of residential and commercial areas.

Table 8-81, below, provides a summary of air quality and noise compliance in the residential

areas located nearest to the Proposal site.

Table 8-81 Compliance with air quality and noise and vibration criteria in residential areas

Key impact Criteria Matraville Compliance Hillsdale Compliance

Air quality Total suspended particulates

Particulate matter (PM10)

Deposited Dust

Odour concentrations

Noise and

vibration

Construction noise

Operation noise intrusiveness

criteria

Operational noise amenity

criteria

Sleep disturbance

Vibration

Site Layout

The Site layout has been designed to allow for the non-interruption of surrounding land uses

while maximising the efficiency of the transfer terminal’s operations. The terminal building would

be enclosed and designed to allow for the unloading and handling of waste, with environmental

controls including dust suppression and odour control systems. It would be divided in two areas

by a concrete block wall, in order to separately receive both putrescible and non-putrescible

waste for the purposes of resource recovery and to maintain separation between the two waste

streams. In addition, there would be a designated area within the putrescible and non-



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

putrescible areas of the terminal for the management of ‘hot loads’ and fire. The Site would

include a hardstand area for temporary storage and manoeuvring of full and empty sealed

shipping containers prior to lading on to trains, office buildings and amenities, and rail sidings for

the loading of containers onto trains for rail transport to Crisps Creek IMF.

The access road to the facility from Beauchamp Road has been designed as a shared entrance

to the terminal building and the Asciano Botany Site, which it is understood that Asciano intend

to develop in the future. Asciano and Veolia are working together to ensure that the remaining

portion of Asciano’s Botany Site is not sterilised for future use. The concept design for the

Proposal has allowed for sufficient parking, truck queuing and container handling space to allow

the operation of the Proposal without encumbering the future development of the adjacent

Asciano Botany Site or impeding road networks.

The Site layout has been designed to optimise efficient and safe operation of the site, allowing

for adequate turning areas for trucks, areas for container storage and handling and for handling

and sorting waste. The Proposal has been designed for an operational capacity of 400,000 tpa

of putrescible waste and 100,000 tpa of non-putrescible waste. Physical constraints at the site

mean that handling of additional material at the Site would not be feasible under the current

concept design. Should there be future demand for waste management facilities in the area an

alternative facility would be required.

The proposed layout of the Banksmeadow TT is shown in Section 3.2. Further detailed site

plans are included in Appendix B.

Consistency with strategic land use plans

As discussed in Section 5.5.1, the Proposal is consistent with NSW and federal government

strategies and supports strategic land uses objectives for the South-Sydney region and for

NSW.

The Banksmeadow TT would help to achieve the objectives of the Waste and Resource

Recovery Act 2001 (WARR Act) by providing a facility through which local governments and C&I

operators can choose to send putrescible waste to either the Woodlawn MBT facility at the

Woodlawn Eco-Project site for recovery of recyclables and organics, or to the Woodlawn

Bioreactor, a highly-engineered landfill facility which uses methane captured form the waste

decomposition for renewable electricity generation. The Proposal would facilitate the

implementation of the WARR Strategy by providing resource recovery infrastructure to divert

municipal waste from landfill and increase the recovery and use of secondary materials. As

outlined in Section 5.5, the Proposal is also aligned with several of the aims of the Reducing

waste: implementation Strategy 2011-2015, the draft NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource

Recovery Strategy 2013-21 (Draft WARR Strategy) and the National Waste Policy: Less Waste,

More Resources 2009.

The Proposal is consistent with strategic land use plans for the Sydney Region and for NSW.

For example, the Proposal in consistent with several Goals within NSW 2021: A Plan to Make

NSW Number One, including to invest in critical infrastructure by enhancing rail freight

movements, protecting the natural environment and increasing the opportunities for people to

look after their own neighbourhoods and environments. As noted above, the Banksmeadow TT

is consistent with the IN1 – General industrial zoning under the SEPP (Port Botany) allowing for

the integration of land use and transport planning through the provision of boundaries for future

urban development, as outlined within the Metropolitan plan for Sydney to 2036. Finally, the

Proposal would aid in achieving the objectives of the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney

(Draft Metropolitan Strategy) by increasing freight handling capacity, reducing the number of

heavy vehicles on the road and creating employment opportunities.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Section 5.5 provides a detailed assessment of the project in terms of priorities and targets

adopted in the NSW 2021, Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the draft Metropolitan

Strategy for Sydney 2031 as well as other relevant published and draft State plans and

Government policies and strategies.


Veolia is progressing detailed design of the Site Access in consultation with Asciano. The final

design of the Site Access would provide access for future land use development proposal on

the Asciano Botany Site (subject to planning approval), catering for up to 100 truck movements

per hour.

CONCLUSION 8.9.5

Land use impacts have been assessed to determine the compatibility of the Proposal with

surrounding land uses. The Banksmeadow TT would provide an industrial land use consistent

with the existing land use, the adjacent land uses and potential future land uses. The Proposal

is consistent with land use zoning within the area and would enable the future facilitation of

further industrial growth. In addition, the Proposal is not expected to have adverse impacts on

nearby residential land uses of Matraville and Hillsdale. Consequently, the residual risk for land

use impacts has been considered to be low.

8.10 BIODIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION 8.10.1

This section considers the biodiversity values of the site and assesses potential impacts to flora

and fauna as a result of the Proposal. Results from vegetation mapping, database searches and

a site inspection are presented in this Section, as well as identification of noxious weeds, vermin

and pests that are currently located in the surrounding area.

The key issues that have been identified for the Proposal for noise and vibration that are

assessed within the Section include:

Reduced biodiversity on the Proposal site as a result of construction and/or operation.

Landscaping of the Proposal site.

Pest and vermin management.

To address key biodiversity risks identified for the Proposal, namely that the Proposal may

reduce biodiversity as a result of construction and / or operation, both construction and

operation impacts have been assessed.

Biodiversity management and mitigation measures have been identified in Section 8.10.4 and

include both construction and operational mitigation measures.


Methodology

The biodiversity assessment consisted of a desktop review of existing information and review of

Site photographs and plant specimens taken from trees on the Site.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Two database searches were undertaken to identify existing records of threatened entities and

matters of national environmental significance in the region of the Site including:

The NSW Wildlife Atlas which is managed by the NSW Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH). A search was undertaken to determine threatened species records listed

under the TSC Act to within 10 km of the Site.

The Protected Matters Search Tool which is managed by the Commonwealth Department

of the Environment (DotE). A co-ordinate search was undertaken (-33.95805E,

151.21988S) to determine protected matters records listed under the EPBC Act to within

10 km of the Site.

A review of relevant information was undertaken to provide an understanding of ecological

values occurring or potentially occurring in the study area and wider region. Reports, vegetation

maps, topographic maps, aerial photography and literature reviewed included, but were not

limited to, the following:

Current and historical (1943) aerial photographs viewed on the NSW Land and Property

Management SIX Viewer (www.maps.nsw.gov.au accessed 25 June 2013).

The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority

Area (DECCW 2009).

In addition to the desktop review, Hyder’s Senior Ecologist reviewed photographs and plant

specimens from trees on the Site taken during Site inspections in May 2013.

Aerial photograph review

Review of the 1943 aerial photograph of the Site on the NSW Land and Property Management

SIX Viewer (www.maps.nsw.gov.au) shows the Site as largely cleared and modified, with

buildings visible in the south-west of the Site and clearing of the eastern arm of the Site. There

appears to be some small tree or shrub dominated vegetation in the north-west of the Site.

Vegetation mapping

DECCW (2009) mapped the vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management

Authority (CMA) Area. The Sydney Metropolitan CMA area (now merged with the Hawkesbury

Nepean CMA area) formerly encompassed the eastern portions of the Sydney Metropolis,

extending from the coastline to the catchments that flow to the Parramatta, Georges and

Hacking River. The vegetation mapping was derived from interpretation of aerial photography

flown in 2005, 2007 and 2008, with communities defined using survey and statistical analysis.

The vegetation in the east of the Site and to the north-east is mapped as “Weeds and Exotics”,

and the strip of trees adjoining the northern side of McPherson Street immediately to the south

of the Site is mapped as “Urban Exotic/Native”. These vegetation types are not described in the

report accompanying the map, but are assumed to refer to vegetation dominated by weeds and

exotic species and degraded urban vegetation fragments. The closest mapped native

vegetation to the Site is a small patch of “Coastal Flats Swamp Mahogany Forest”

approximately 50 metres west of the Site across the rail lines. Coastal Flats Swamp Mahogany

Forest is identified by DECCW (2009) as being equivalent to Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on

Coastal Floodplains, an endangered ecological community listed under the TSC Act. The

vegetation mapping of the Site is shown on Figure 8-44.

http://www.maps.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.maps.nsw.gov.au/



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-44 DECCW mapping of the Proposal site (2009)



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Database searches

Threatened ecological communities

The Department of the Environment (DotE) Protected Matters Search identified four threatened

ecological communities (TECs) listed under the EPBC Act that are known, likely or which may

occur within 10 kilometres of the Site:

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub of the Sydney Region.

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia.

Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion.

Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Woodland on Shale.

DECCW (2009) mapped Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub within 10 kilometres of the Site, as

well as five additional TECs listed under the TSC Act:

Bangalay Sand Forest of the Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.

Coastal Saltmarsh in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East

Corner Bioregions.

Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast,

Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast,

Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions.

Sydney Freshwater Wetlands in the Sydney Basin Bioregion.

The closest mapped area of TEC is a small patch of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

Floodplains, mapped as Coastal Flats Swamp Mahogany Forest by DECCW (2009)

approximately 50 metres west of the Site. The vegetation of the Site is highly modified and is

not consistent with any TEC.

Threatened Species

A search of the OEH Wildlife Atlas and DotE Protected Matters Search Tool (Appendix P)

identified records of 21 threatened flora species and 53 threatened fauna species previously

recorded, or likely to occur, within 10km of the Site. The locations of the Bionet records are

shown in Plate 4 and Plate 5. Of the 53 fauna species identified from the database search, 18

species are restricted to marine habitats and 35 are typical of terrestrial habitats (including

coastal/estuarine habitats).



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-45 Threatened flora species recorded within 10 km of the Proposal site (Bionet 2013)



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-46 Threatened fauna species recorded within 10 km of the Proposal site (Bionet 2013)



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

There are few records of threatened species in the developed areas close to the Site (that is,

within one to two kilometres of the site). Most of the records are of shorebirds such as Little

Tern, Curlew Sandpiper, Great Knot and Black-tailed Godwit, recorded on the foreshore around

Port Botany. The only threatened mammal species recorded within one kilometre of the site was

the Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), which may utilise trees within and

adjacent to the study area for foraging.

There are also records of Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) in Joseph Banks Park,

Botany approximately two kilometres west of the Site. These records are likely to be associated

with translocations of the species undertaken in the park between 1996 and 2001; the

translocations were unsuccessful in establishing a permanent population of Green and Golden

Bell Frogs (White and Pyke 2008) and the species is now considered to be extinct in this

location (SEWPaC 2013).

The Green and Golden Bell Frog was also recorded in 1997 in Orica’s Southlands Remediation

and Development site, immediately west of the Site (Biosphere Environmental Consultants

2007, in URS 2009). Targeted surveys for this species were undertaken by Biosphere

Environmental Consultants in 2007 as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Orica

project and none were found. It was subsequently concluded that the site is not permanently

colonised and is only likely to be utilised by the frog for dispersal during particular weather

conditions (Biosphere Environmental Consultants 2007, in URS 2009).

The Site does not contain suitable breeding or foraging habitat for the Green and Golden Bell

Frog, nor is it likely to provide dispersal habitat. Breeding habitat typically comprises water-

bodies that are unshaded and have a grassy area nearby and diurnal sheltering sites available

for foraging (OEH 2014, DEC 2005a). The Site does not contain any permanent or ephemeral

waterbodies. It contains a small amount of vegetation which largely comprises exotic and native

shrubs, trees and grasses. Furthermore, the rail line, surrounding road network and buildings

reduce terrestrial habitat connectivity and subsequent opportunities for any frogs to disperse

onto the Site. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Green and Golden Bell Frog would occur at

the Site.

The closest record of threatened flora species to the Site consists of a large number of records

of Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis (Sunshine Wattle) to the east of Bunnerong Road, Chifley,

approximately 1.7 kilometres to the south-east of the site. The highly modified vegetation of the

site is considered unlikely to represent potential habitat for this or any other threatened flora

species previously recorded in the locality.

Migratory Species

A search of the Department of the Environment Protected Matters Search Tool found 53

migratory fauna species listed under the EPBC Act, comprising:

17 migratory marine species.

Nine migratory terrestrial species.

27 migratory wetlands species.

Other Matters of National Environmental Significance

The Department of the Environment Protected Matters Search identified one Wetland of

International Importance within 10 kilometres of the Site, namely Towra Point Nature Reserve,

which is listed under the Ramsar Convention. Towra Point Nature Reserve is located on the

northern side of Kurnell Peninsula, approximately 6.8 kilometres south-west of the Site across

Botany Bay.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Site Inspection

The Site is highly modified and supports low ecological values. Vegetation observed during the

Site inspection consists of scattered planted trees and shrubs and dense ground cover of exotic

shrubs, herbs and grasses. Trees on the Site include Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood),

Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum), Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig), Casuarina glauca (Swamp

Oak), Quercus sp. (Oak) and Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine). Scattered native

shrubs observed included Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae (Coastal Wattle), Callistemon

viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) and the invasive non-local native Acacia saligna (Golden

Wreath Wattle).

There were dense stands of the noxious weeds Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata

(Bitou), Lantana camara (Lantana) and Anredera cordifolia (Madeira Vine). Cleared areas

supported bare soil or cover of exotic grass species such as Eragrostis curvula (African

Lovegrass), Melinis repens (Red Natal Grass) and Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu).

Fauna species observed on the Site were limited to common native and exotic suburban bird

species such as Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis),

Crested Pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes), Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) and Rock

Dove (Columba livia).

Isolated trees on the Site offer potential nesting, sheltering and roosting habitat to birds, and

scattered native and exotic shrubs and trees offer foraging, sheltering and roosting habitat to

birds. Dense stands of weedy exotic shrubs and herbs offer sheltering and foraging habitat for

reptiles, small mammals and ground-feeding birds. More open grassy areas may provide

foraging habitat for ground-feeding birds and small terrestrial mammals. The Site is located

within a relatively industrialised and urbanised landscape and habitat in the locality is highly

fragmented, with numerous barriers to fauna connectivity such as roads and fences.

No threatened flora or fauna species were identified on the Site, and habitat values for

threatened species are poor. The Site does not support a significant area of habitat for common,

protected, migratory or threatened species occurring in the locality. The Site supports marginal

potential foraging habitat for highly mobile species such as birds and bats, including the

threatened species Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus). However, these features

are unlikely to provide key lifecycle requirements for threatened species recorded within the

locality.

No migratory species were recorded on the Site, and none of the migratory species identified in

database searches are considered likely to utilise habitats on the Site.

Noxious Weeds

Four of the exotic species recorded on the Site are listed as noxious weeds in the control area

of Botany Bay City Council (Table 8-82).

Table 8-82 Noxious weeds recorded in the study area

Scientific name Common name Control class

Chrysanthemoides monilifera

subsp. rotundata

Bitou Bush 2

Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass 3

Lantana camara Lantana 4

Ricinus communis Castor Oil Plant 4



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993 imposes obligations on occupiers of land to control noxious

weeds declared for their area. The control requirements for the classes of noxious weeds

recorded on the Site are presented in Table 8-83.

Table 8-83 Weed control classes and requirements

Control

Class

Weed type Control requirements

Class 2 Plants that pose a potentially serious threat

to primary production or the environment of a

region to which the order applies and are not

present in the region or are present only to a

limited extent.

The plant must be eradicated from the land

and the land must be kept free of the plant.

The weeds are also "notifiable" and a range

of restrictions on their sale and movement

exist.


to primary production or the environment of a

region to which the order applies, are not

widely distributed in the area and are likely to

spread in the area or to another area.

The plant must be fully and continuously

suppressed and destroyed.


to primary production, the environment or

human health, are widely distributed in an

area to which the order applies and are likely

to spread in the area or to another area.

The growth and spread of the plant must be

controlled according to the measures

specified in a management plan published by

the local control authority.

Vermin and Pests

The existing extent of vermin and pest infestations on the Site is not known. The current land

uses on the Site (storage and small scale commercial industrial operations) are not likely to

attract large numbers of vermin and pests; however there is habitat on-site for vermin and pests,

within buildings and storage areas as well as in the areas of exotic vegetation.

There are records of 28 exotic vertebrate fauna species within 10 kilometres of the Site in the

NSW Wildlife Atlas. Of these, 13 are considered to be potential pest species (Table 8-84), given

that they are either listed on the Department of Primary Industries Vertebrate Pests website or

as part of Key Threatening Processes under the TSC Act.

Table 8-84 Vertebrate pest species recorded within 10 kilometres of the Site

Group Common name Scientific name

Fish Mosquito Fish Gambusia holbrooki

Amphibians Cane Toad Rhinella marinus

Birds Common Myna Acridotheres tristis

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Eurasian Blackbird Turdus merula

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Mammals House Mouse Mus musculus

Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus

Black Rat Rattus rattus



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Group Common name Scientific name

Fox Vulpes vulpes

Cat Felis catus

Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus

Goat Capra hircus

The only exotic animals recorded during Site inspections were the birds Common Starling

(Sturnus vulgaris), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and Rock Dove (Columba livia). Most of

the larger mammal pests listed in Table 8-84 are unlikely to occur on the Site given the

urbanised context, limited potential habitat and barriers to fauna connectivity such as roads and

fences. It is likely that small mammals such as rats and mice occur on the Site and adjoining

areas, utilising shelter habitat in the existing stands of exotic groundcover.

Common invertebrate pests that could potentially occur on-site include cockroaches, spiders,

mosquitos, ants and flies.


Construction Impacts

Construction of the Proposal would require removal of vegetation from the Site. The three

mature trees of Corymbia citriodora (Lemon-scented Gum) at the entrance to the Site on

McPherson Street will be retained. The vegetation of the Site consists of regrowth and planted

native and exotic trees, shrubs and ground covers over highly disturbed soils. The removal of

vegetation on the Site is not considered to significantly impact on biodiversity values.

A number of noxious and environmental weeds occur in abundance on the Site, as listed in

Table 8-82. Removal of these weeds in accordance with P&I requirements and under a weed

management plan for the proposal may result in an improved outcome for biodiversity values in

the locality by reducing the extent and potential further spread of these invasive species.

The Site supports low biodiversity values. No threatened species, populations or communities

were identified on the Site, and there limited habitat value for threatened species. The trees on

the Site represent a very small amount of potential foraging habitat for birds and bats, including

the threatened species Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus). Given that no

threatened species, populations or communities were recorded, and the poor habitat values on

the Site, no Assessments of Significance or Significant Impact Assessments were considered to

be necessary. It is considered highly unlikely that the Proposal would result in a significant

impact on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

Operational Impacts

Inappropriate handling of waste within the Banksmeadow TT would have the potential to attract

vermin, flies and birds as the decomposition of waste on-site would emit odours that attract

these pests to the Site.

Operation of the facility would be such that waste is not permitted to remain on-site without

being containerised for a period greater than 24 hours. The containers of waste would be

sealed air and water tight, preventing the emission of odour, which attracts pest species.

Additionally, failure to maintain the proposed landscaped areas on the Site, or use of

inappropriate plant species, has the potential to result in the proliferation of weeds. A

Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared and is included as Appendix Q.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


The potential for impacts may be avoided, reduced or controlled through the implementation of

safeguards during construction and operation of the Proposal. The mitigation measures listed

below would be implemented for the Proposal to minimise impacts on biodiversity.


A CEMP would be prepared for the construction phase of the Proposal which would prescribe

the following measures to be implemented to minimise impacts on biodiversity:

Weed management would be undertaken during the Site preparation works to minimise

weed establishment and invasions, and would include the following:

- Management of weed species on-site would be in accordance with the Noxious

Weeds Act 1993.

- Equipment used for treating weed infestation would be cleaned prior to moving to a

new area within the Proposal site to minimise the likelihood of transferring any plant

material and soil.

- Soil stripped and stockpiled from areas containing known weed infestations are to be

stored separately and are not to be moved to areas free of weeds.

During works associated with clearing of vegetation the following measures would be

implemented to minimise loss of native vegetation /fauna habitat:

- Clearance of native vegetation would be minimised as far as practicable.

- The extent of vegetation clearing would be clearly identified on construction plans.

During works associated with clearing of vegetation the following measures would be

implemented to minimise fauna injury and mortality:

- A pre-start up check for sheltering native fauna would be undertaken of all

infrastructure, plant and equipment.

- If any pits/trenches are to remain open overnight, they would be securely covered, if

possible. Alternatively, fauna ramps (logs or wooden planks) are to be installed to

provide an escape for trapped fauna.

The following measures would be implemented to minimise disruptions to foraging fauna

and nesting or roosting behaviours:

- Should lighting be required during the construction phase, directional lighting would

be used.

- Construction machinery and plant would be maintained regularly to minimise

unnecessary noise.

- Dust suppression would be undertaken on-site as appropriate.


The following measures would be included in the detailed design of the Proposal to mitigate

impacts on biodiversity:

A Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared showing landscape areas, planting zones,

retained trees, and an indicative plant species list. A more detailed Landscape Plan

would be developed during detailed design, in accordance with the Draft Botany Bay

DCP and the draft Landscape Technical Guidelines for Development Sites (2013) where

appropriate. Plant species to be used in landscaping will be predominantly native, with

locally indigenous species incorporated where practical and suitable. Plant species will



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

mainly be drawn from the lists in appendices 1 and 2 of the draft guidelines, with

additional native species appropriate for bioretention basins as per relevant WSUD

guidelines.

The landscaped zone on the western boundary bordering the Botany Building Recyclers

would be designed to capture gross pollutants and oil and grits from pavement. This area

would be regularly maintained to remove rubbish and can be renewed on a regular basis.

Detailed design of the terminal building and associated waste handling facilities would

incorporate reasonable measures to minimise the potential for birds, rodents, flies and

other pests to gather at the Banksmeadow TT site, including provision for bird deterrent

measures.

Weed and pest infestations identified during the operation of the proposal would be

managed in accordance with a Vermin and Pest Control Plan, which would form part of

the OEMP. The VPCP would address the following issues:

- All waste in the tipping and handling areas would be cleaned daily.

- Catch drains and drainage sumps would be cleaned regularly.

- On-site waste storage and handling would be minimised as far as practicable.

- Routine inspections would be undertaken to identify potential vermin habitats.

- Commercial pest and vermin control specialists would be used regularly.

- Routine litter patrols and the use of a street sweeper would be undertaken to collect

trash on-site, around the perimeter, on immediately adjacent properties and on

approach roads.

CONCLUSION 8.10.5

Construction of the Proposal is likely to require the removal of vegetation from the Site. The

three mature Corymbia citriodora (Lemon-scented Gum) at the McPherson Street site entry will

be retained. The removal of the existing vegetation from the Site is not considered to

significantly impact on biodiversity values as the Site is dominated by weed species which

represent low biodiversity values. During the operation phase of the Proposal, handling of waste

within the Banksmeadow TT would have the potential to attract vermin, flies and birds as the

decomposition of waste on-site would emit odours that attract these pests on the Site.



Potential to reduce biodiversity as a result of construction and/or operation: the

Site represents low biodiversity values, with no threatened species, populations or

communities identified on site and limited habitat values on-site. The CEMP would

include measures to minimise impacts on flora and fauna as a result of the construction of

the Proposal.

Landscaping: a Landscape Concept Plan has been developed which identifies species

of local provenance that would be planted on site. The Landscape Concept Plan provides

for the protection of three mature Corymbia citriodora (Lemon- scented Gums) at the site

entry on McPherson Street.

Pest and vermin management: weed species present on the Site would be removed

during the construction phase. Weed and pest infestations identified during operation of

the Proposal would be managed in accordance with a Vermin and Pest Control Plan.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on biodiversity, and determined key risks

associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the residual risk to

biodiversity has been determined to be low.

8.11 INDIGENOUS HERITAGE

INTRODUCTION 8.11.1

Potential impacts on Indigenous heritage as a result of the Proposal have been identified and

assessed and are summarised in this Section. A review of the Office of Environment and

Heritage’s Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System database was undertaken to

determine the likelihood of relics or items of Indigenous heritage significance occurring within

the vicinity of the Site. Construction and operation impacts on Indigenous heritage have been

assessed to evaluate key risks for the Proposal, namely that the Proposal may have a negative

impact on Indigenous heritage within the area.

Management and mitigation measures have been identified in Section 8.11.4 to reduce the risk

of negatively impacting Indigenous heritage items.


The La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (La Perouse LALC) acknowledges the Gadigal

and Bediagal (Bidjigal) clans as the clans who traditionally occupied the Sydney Coast to the

north and north-west of Botany Bay. To the south of Botany Bay the La Perouse LALC

acknowledge the Gweagal clan (Fire clan), of the Dharawal language group to have traditionally

occupied the southern Sydney area.

As discussed in Section 8.1 the Proposal site has been previously extensively disturbed, and is

located within an industrial precinct. The Keith Engineering portion of the site was originally

developed for industrial purposes in 1949 and the Asciano owned land was developed as a

railway siding in the 1950s. It is considered that there is a low likelihood of relics or items of

Indigenous heritage significance prevailing at the Site.

Existing Indigenous Heritage items

Items of Indigenous heritage significance are listed on statutory registers and are afforded

varying levels of protection. A search was undertaken of the Commonwealth EPBC Protected

Matters Search Tool (26th June 2013), which identified no items of Indigenous heritage within a

minimum of 5 km proximity of the proposed Banksmeadow TT site. A search of the NSW

AHIMS register was undertaken on 26th June 2013, allowing for a 5 km buffer of the

Banksmeadow TT site. No recorded items of Indigenous heritage were identified within the

vicinity of the Site. In addition, no native title claims have been found to exist within the

determined area (National Native Title Tribunal, 2013).

The Randwick LGA contains the ‘Dharawal Resting Place – Coast Hospital Cemetery- Burial

Ground’ in La Perouse, to the south-east of the proposed Banksmeadow TT site. This is not

located within proximity to either the Proposal site, or expected traffic routes.


No items of Indigenous heritage significance have previously been identified within the vicinity of

the Banksmeadow TT site. The Site has not been identified by the Gadigal or Bediagal people

as a site of Indigenous heritage significance.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Neither construction nor operation of the Banksmeadow TT is likely to have an impact on

existing Indigenous heritage items. It is unlikely that any items of Aboriginal heritage

significance would be uncovered as a result of either construction or operation, as the Site is

already highly disturbed. If any items of Aboriginal significance are uncovered, mitigation

measures would be implemented as per Section 8.11.4.


Given the altered state of the Site, and lack of Indigenous heritage items previously identified on

the Site, proposed mitigation would focus on a procedure for the management of unexpected

archaeological finds would be documented within the CEMP for the Proposal. This would

include commitments that:

If an item of Aboriginal significance or suspected significance is discovered during

construction, all work in the vicinity of the area would cease and the Environmental

Representative for construction of the Proposal would be contacted as soon as possible

to determine the subsequent course of action.

In the event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works would

cease and the NSW Police and the NSW Coroner’s office would be contacted. If the

burial is identified as being of Aboriginal origin a heritage professional and NSW OEH

would be contacted to determine the subsequent course of action.

CONCLUSION 8.11.5

The high level of disturbance at the Site, particularly the extent of fill present, means that items

of Indigenous heritage significance are unlikely to be discovered during excavation works for

construction of the Proposal. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the risk and


Potential impact on Indigenous heritage within the area: if an item of Indigenous

significance, or suspected significance, is discovered during construction, all work in the

vicinity of the area would cease and the relevant Environmental Representative would be

contacted to establish an appropriate course of action. If the items are of Aboriginal origin

the OEH is to be notified.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on Indigenous heritage and determined key

risks associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the residual

risk to Indigenous heritage has been considered to be low.

8.12 NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE

INTRODUCTION 8.12.1

This Section summarises the potential impacts on non-Indigenous heritage as a result of

construction and operation of the Proposal. A review of applicable State and Federal heritage

registers was undertaken to identify any non-Indigenous heritage items within the vicinity of the

Site. An assessment of construction and operation impacts on any non-Indigenous heritage

items has been undertaken to ascertain potential for the Proposal to have a negative impact on

any non-Indigenous heritage within the area.

Management and mitigation measures have been identified in Section 8.11.4 to reduce the risk

of adverse impacts on non-Indigenous heritage items.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Items of non-indigenous heritage significance are listed in statutory registers, providing them

with varying levels of protection. Non-indigenous heritage items are listed at a National, State or

Local level on the following registers, applicable to the Banksmeadow TT site:

National Heritage Register.

NSW Register.

SEPP Port Botany

Botany Bay LEP.

A search of the National Heritage Register and the NSW Register, found no items of national

heritage significance either on the Site or within 5 km radius of the Banksmeadow TT site.

Table 8-85 lists the items of local heritage significance identified within the SEPP (Port Botany)

and located in the Banksmeadow area.

Table 8-85 Local Heritage items located within the suburb of Banksmeadow

Item Name Address Property Description

Main Administration Building—

“Orica” and Mature Ficus

Corner of Denison Street and

Beauchamp Road

Lot 11, DP 1039919

Pier Hotel 1751 Botany Road Lot 1, DP 1031248

Botany Bay Hotel 1807 Botany Road Lot A, DP 333268

There are two heritage items located within proximity of the Banksmeadow TT site, being the

Main Administration Building – “Orica” and the adjacent Mature Ficus tree. These items are

located approximately 150 m to the north-east of the Banksmeadow TT site. Figure 8-47 shows

the location of these items in relation to the Proposal site.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Figure 8-47 Location of SEPP (Port Botany) heritage items



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


The Orica Main Administration Building and the Mature Ficus tree are located within the Botany

Industrial Park, on the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Denison Street and are exposed to

a high level of vehicle traffic. The low number of vehicle movements associated with the

Proposal that would utilise Denison Street and Beauchamp Road heading north (i.e.

approximately 4 vehicles during the AM peak) would not alter the heritage context of the

building and fig tree. The terminal building would be consistent with the existing land uses of the

area and would not alter the heritage context of the items.

Construction of the Banksmeadow TT would take place within the site boundary and would

therefore have no impact on the heritage items identified. The high level of disturbance at the

site would mean that items of heritage significance are unlikely to be discovered during

excavation works for development of the Proposal. In the event that an item of heritage

significance is uncovered, the mitigation measures contained in Section 8.12.4 would be

implemented.


Procedures for the management of unexpected finds of items of potential heritage significance

would be included within the CEMP for the Proposal, and would include:

Should an item of non-Indigenous significance, or suspected significance, be discovered

during construction, all work in the vicinity of the area would cease and the Proposal

Environmental Representative would be contacted as soon as possible to determine the

subsequent course of action.

In the event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works would

cease and the NSW Police and the NSW Coroner’s office would be contacted.

CONCLUSION 8.12.5

The high level of disturbance at the Site means that items of non-indigenous heritage

significance are unlikely to be discovered during excavation works for development of the

Proposal. There are two heritage items located within proximity of the Banksmeadow TT site,

being the Main Administration Building – “Orica” and the adjacent mature Ficus tree which are

located within 200 m of the Site. The distance of these items from the Site and the fact that

there is not a direct line of site from the items to the site means that the Proposal would not

impact on these items.



Potential impact on non-Indigenous heritage within the area: if an item of non-

Indigenous heritage significance, or suspected significance, is discovered during

construction, all work in that area would cease and the relevant Environmental

representative would be contacted to establish an appropriate course of action. In the

event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works would cease and

the NSW Police and NSW Coroner’s office would be contacted.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on non-Indigenous heritage and determined

key risks associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the

residual risk to non-Indigenous heritage has been considered to be low.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

8.13 SOCIO-ECONOMIC

INTRODUCTION 8.13.1

Potential socio-economic impacts associated with the Proposal have been assessed and are

summarised in this Section. The socio-economic profile of the area surrounding the

Banksmeadow Site has been identified, including for the suburb of Banksmeadow and the

Botany Bay and Randwick LGAs. Construction and operation socio-economic impacts have

been assessed to evaluate key issues for the Proposal. Key issues include:

Potential for negative social impacts in relation to increased traffic, noise, and air pollution

(including odour) as well as decreased visual amenity.

Changes to local demographic and local economic impacts.

Regional economic impacts.

Measures to mitigate socio-economic impacts associated with the Proposal have been identified

in Section 8.13.4 and measures for the construction and operation phases.


The Banksmeadow precinct is predominantly an industrial area within the City of Botany Bay

LGA, bordering the Randwick City LGA. Historically, the Botany Bay area was established as an

industrial precinct in the 1850s with minimal population growth until the 1960s. The area has

experienced rapid population growth since 2006, with high residential growth occurring in close

proximity to the Mascot train station (ABS, 2012b). Major commercial and industrial properties

located within the area include the northern part of Port Botany, the Sydney Domestic Airport

and the Botany Industrial Park.

The population of Banksmeadow is just 12 people (ABS, 2012a). This is most likely a result of

the area being predominantly an industrial precinct. The population of Banksmeadow declined

from 484 residents in 2006 due to a boundary change transferring the location of a significant

number of houses to within the boundary of Botany. This area was in the south-west area of

Banksmeadow, and is not within proximity of the Banksmeadow TT site.

The neighbouring suburb of Matraville is a highly residential area, with a population of 9,039

and a population density of 31.2 persons per hectare (ABS, 2012b). Health Care and Social

Assistance is the highest source of employment within Matraville, followed by Retail Trade,

contributing 11.8% and 10.6% to total employment respectively. The nearest residential area to

the Site is located within the suburb of Hillsdale, approximately 250 m to the north-east.

Hillsdale has a population of 4,977 and a population density of 99.54 persons per hectare (ABS

2012c).

The Banksmeadow TT is expected to service a significantly larger area than Banksmeadow and

Matraville. In addition, the effects of increased traffic, and the expected truck arrival and

departure routes, may impact the greater Botany Bay and Randwick City areas.

Botany Bay LGA Profile

The population of the Botany Bay LGA is 39,355, with a population density of 18.14 persons per

hectare (ABS, 2013a). The area has an above average migrant population, with just 51.4% of

the population born in Australia, compared with the national average of 69.8%.

The total labour force of the Botany Bay LGA is 19,421 people. Health Care and Social

Assistance is the highest source of employment across the Botany Bay LGA, accounting for



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

11.2% of total employment (ABS, 2013a). Retail Trade, and Transport, Postal and Warehousing

are also major contributors to employment within the area, adding a further 10.1% and 10.0%

respectively. These three categories, along with Accommodation and Food Services,

Manufacturing and Professional, Technical and Scientific, account for 52.8% of total

employment within the area.

Randwick LGA Profile

The population of the Randwick City LGA is 128,989, with a population density of 35.49 persons

per hectare (ABS, 2013b). The greater population density is representative of the highly

residential nature of the area, in comparison to the predominantly industrial and commercial

precincts of the Botany Bay LGA.

Health Care and Social Assistance is the highest sources of employment within the Randwick

LGA, as it is within the botany Bay LGA, comprising 12.3% of total employment (ABS, 2013b).

However, unlike within the Botany Bay area, Professional, Scientific and Technical Services and

Education and Training, each also make up over 10% of total employment, at 12.0% and 10.2%

respectively. The occupations represented within the Randwick LGA are likely reflective of the

large number of educational and medical institutions within the area, notably the University of

New South Wales and the Prince of Wales Hospital.



The construction of the Banksmeadow TT would create new temporary employment,

contributing positively to the local economy.

The residential areas with the greatest proximity to the Site are the suburbs of Hillsdale and

Matraville, which are located 250 m and 350 m from the Proposal site respectively. Residents

within these areas have been recognised as stakeholders of the project and their engagement

with the planning for the Proposal has been addressed within the community consultation

initiatives described in Section 6. This communication would continue through the construction

phase as per the identified mitigation measures:

Construction of the Proposal would create increased levels of traffic, noise and air pollution for

the duration of the construction phase, which has the potential to impact on local residents if not

appropriately managed. Assessments of traffic, air quality and noise impacts associated with

construction of the Proposal are presented in sections 8.3, 8.5 and 8.6, respectively.

Operational impacts

The operation of the Banksmeadow TT is expected to create up to 25 new full-time jobs,

providing economic benefits for the area. Further details of job generation associated with the

proposed are presented in Appendix C. The Proposal would also provide a significant regional

benefit delivering reduced waste transferred to landfill and increased industrial resource reuse.

The Banksmeadow TT would assist in local and regional resource recovery targets, as

prioritised under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001. It would also provide

local councils with a cost-effective waste management alternative, increasing competition and

reducing costs, indirectly benefiting their communities.

Randwick City Council has raised a concern that truck drivers accessing the Site would park on

the surrounding road network to purchase food or use toilet facilities, if these facilities are not

provided at the Site. The Proposal has the potential to cause disruption to traffic flows, use

parking spaces that would otherwise be used by members of the public to access shopping

areas within the vicinity of the site and place additional demands on public facilities.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

It is not expected that the operation of the Banksmeadow TT would lead to any long-term socio-

economic impacts or alteration to the socio-economic structure of the surrounding LGAs as the

Site is located on industrially zoned land and would represent a conversion of the Site from one

industrial land use to another. The localised operational impacts would therefore be minimal as

the surrounding area, and adjacent land uses, are largely industrial with a low residential

population.

MITIGATIONS MEASURES 8.13.4


A CEMP would be prepared for the construction phase of the Proposal and would prescribe

measures to be implemented to minimise impacts on surrounding communities. These

measures would include:

Work hours during construction would be limited to the following, unless otherwise

authorised under the CNVMP within the CEMP:

- 7am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.

- 8am to 1pm, Saturday.

- No work on Sundays and public holidays.

A Community Engagement Strategy would be developed to ensure that community

engagement is maintained throughout the construction period, including:

- Continuing communication pathways, including a dedicated, 1800 phone line, email

address and section on Veolia’s website, to provide information regarding the

proposal.

- Maintaining communication with key government and community stakeholder,

through the provision of letters and information sheets.

- Ensuring landholders, within proximity of the Site, are kept well informed about the

proposal, the construction hours and duration of the works. Landholders would be

provided relevant contact details to address queries relating to the works.


Detailed design of the Proposal would include the following elements to mitigate potential social

impacts associated with the Proposal:

Provision of parking, toilet facilities and vending machines within the Banksmeadow TT

site to encourage truck drivers to take their rest breaks at the Site, rather than parking on

the surrounding road network.

An OEMP would be developed for the operational phase of the Proposal and would include

procedures and measures to ensure that the community is kept informed of the Proposal in a

pro-active and responsive manner. The OEMP would contain provisions for the following:

A Complaints Handling Procedure and maintenance of a Complaints Register.

Operation of a 24 hour telephone line.

Publication of contact details for the Banksmeadow TT on the Veolia website.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

CONCLUSION 8.13.5

Operation of the Banksmeadow TT is not predicted to lead to any long-term socio-economic

impacts or cause alteration to the socio-economic structure of the surrounding LGAs as the Site

is located on industrially zoned land and would represent a conversion of the Site from one

industrial land use to another. The construction phase of the Proposal may have the potential to

impact on local residents through a temporary increase in noise and dust; however these

impacts are likely to be minimal and localised.



Potential for negative social impacts: the Proposal has the potential to create social

impacts in relation to increased traffic, noise and air pollution as well as decreased visual

amenity. Construction hours will be limited and landholders within close proximity of the

Site will be kept well informed about the proposal to minimise the risks of construction

impacts. Communication pathways will be established and communication will be

maintained with key government and community stakeholders. Mitigation measures

addressing potential social impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality and visual impacts

are provided in Sections 8.3.4, 8.6.4, 8.5.4, 8.14.4 respectively.

Changes to local demographic and local economic impacts: operation of the

Banksmeadow TT is expected to create up to 25 new jobs, providing economic benefits

for the area.

Regional economic impacts: overall, the Proposal would provide a significant regional

benefit by delivering reduced waste transferred to landfill, increasing industrial resource

use and creating employment opportunities.

This Section has assessed the potential socio-economic impacts and determined key risks

associated with the Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, the residual risk for

socio-economic impacts has been considered low, with net benefits to local and regional

economic impacts.

8.14 VISUAL IMPACT

INTRODUCTION 8.14.1

A desktop visual impact assessment has been undertaken using existing information and Site

photographs to analyse the study area in terms of the existing visual character and projected

prominence of the proposed terminal building.

The existing appearance of the Proposal site, views of the Site from surrounding viewsheds and

topography have been recorded to determine the existing visual environment for the Site.

Impacts from the Proposal have been identified and assessed, including visual prominence and

impact of the Proposal, light spill impacts and construction impacts. The potential to decrease

amenity of the area has been identified as a key issue for the Proposal.

To address key issues visual impacts associated with the Proposal, and in accordance with the

DGRs, an assessment of the potential visual impacts of the project on the amenity of the

surrounding area has been undertaken. In addition a description of the measures that would be

implemented to minimise the visual impacts of the project has been provided, including the

design features, landscaping and measures to minimise the lighting and design impacts of the

Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


As discussed in Section 5.1, the Proposal site is located within the Banksmeadow Industrial

Precinct as per the Development Control Plan No. 33 – Industrial Development (City of Botany

Bay, 2003), which identifies precincts that are suitable for industrial development. As a result of

the industrial zoning of the Site and surround, development within the surrounding environment

is dominated by industrial uses. Some of the key industrial uses of the land immediately

surrounding the Site include (clockwise):

The Asciano Botany Site to the north of the Site (Plate 2).

The Botany Industrial Park to the north-east of the Site (Plate 3).

Botany Building Recyclers, which is enveloped from the north by the Proposal site (Plate

4).

The Goodman Botany Bay Industrial Park to the south of the Site (Plate 5).

The Botany Goods line and the Toll Container Depot to the south-west and west of the

Site (Plate ).

Plate 2 View north: Botany Industrial Park



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Plate 3 View north: Asciano Botany Site and Orica within Botany Industrial Park

Plate 4 View south-west: Botany Building Recyclers



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Plate 5 View from McPherson Street to the Goodman Industrial Park

Plate 6 View west: Botany Goods Line and Toll Container Depot

As discussed in Section 8.2, the regional topography slopes downwards, towards the

southwest, with steeper slopes to the north and east. The area in the immediate proximity of the

Site is highly modified, containing little remaining vegetation, with the exception of Asciano

Botany Site, adjacent to the Botany Industrial park.

The surrounding built environment generally comprises large warehousing buildings and

industrial plant, commensurate with the scale of the industrial activity. The close relationship of

the industrial land with the Botany Goods Line in this area reinforces this industrial landscape.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Existing appearance of the Proposal site

The Keith Engineering site, located at 34-36 McPherson Street is currently used for storage and

a variety of small businesses. The area includes a large shed, predominantly used for storage,

another smaller shed and a storage building, both used for small scale commercial purposes.

The main shed is a relatively large structure, occupying an area of 130 m in length by 28 m in

width, occupying approximately 2930 m2. The Site itself accommodates storage areas for items

such as truck trailers, stadium collapsible chairs and machinery used by adjacent buildings

(Plates 8 - 10). The northern outdoor boundary is used for skip storage (Plate 7).

Plate 7 View of rear of existing shed Plate 8 View of front of existing shed

Plate 9 View along eastern edge of existing shed Plate 10 View along western edge of existing shed

The Asciano owned portion of the Site is presently used for rolling stock storage and container

handling activities.

Plate 11 Asciano land (prior to Patricks operations)

Plate 12 Asciano land (Patricks on site)

The nearest residential area is located approximately 250 m to the north-east of the Proposal

site, within the suburb of Hillsdale. The residential area of Matraville is located approximately



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

350 m to the east of the Site. Given the large scale of industrial development between the

residential receivers and the Proposal site (including the Botany Industrial Park, there are

limited viewing opportunities from the residential areas to the Proposal site at present. The two

view points of the Site that are from the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Perry Street and

from the street frontage of the Site with McPherson Street. Plate 13 and Plate 14 show the view

of the Site from Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street, respectively. As can be seen the

existing visual environment of the Site is highly industrialised, with the Botany Industrial Park

and associated facilities dominating the skyline within the vicinity of the Site.

Plate 13 View of Proposal site from Beauchamp Road



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Plate 14 View of Proposal site from McPherson Street


Visual impact

An assessment of the visual compatibility of the proposed terminal building and activity with

surrounding land uses and the visual quality of the surround industrial precinct was undertaken.

The development of the Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal would visually alter the Site in a

number of ways:

Terminal building – steel portal frame construction with steel cladding. The building would

be 147 m long, nearly forty metres wide and approximately 13.5 m tall. The building

would also include a ventilation stack in the north-eastern corner of the building, 21 m

above ground level and 2.6 m in diameter. A maintenance area and a diesel tank would

be situated on the north-western side of the terminal building.

Office building – would be located at the front of the terminal building, adjacent to the

McPherson Street entrance and would be one storey high.

Rail sidings – two sidings with a concrete hardstand area in between the tracks and

adjacent to the terminal building.

Site access – two access ways would service the Site, one from the intersection with

Beauchamp Road and Perry Street and the other from McPherson Street.

The Proposal would incorporate a high quality landscaping and planting design that is

adequate, responsive to the Site and retains trees as appropriate. This is detailed further in

Section 8.14.4 and the plans are shown in Appendix Q.

Given the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the visual impact of the Proposal would not

be significant in the context of other buildings in the vicinity of the Site. The proposed height of

the transfer terminal building is 15 m RL, with the ventilation stack extending to 21 m RL. The

building height is commensurate with surrounding developments, which includes the Orica

ChlorAlkali manufacturing facility, the floor level of which sits at an elevation of approximately 14

mAHD. In comparison, the floor level of the Banksmeadow TT would be approximately 8 mAHD,

with the building rising 15 m above this to 33 m RL. . An approved AMCOR Papermill has been

developed in the vicinity which consisting of a metal (steel) clad or pre-cast concrete building

with a building height of 26 m and an exhaust stack of 36 m height, inclusive of the exhaust

stacks (SKM 2006). In comparison the Banksmeadow TT building would have a height of

13.5 m and ventilation stack of 21 m height. The Site would be partially visible to motorists

passing the Site on Beauchamp Road, although it is noted that viewers from cars are generally

travelling at a speed which would reduce visibility. The Proposal would also be visible from

commercial and industrial users of the McPherson Street cul-de-sac, accessing the Goodman’s

Botany Bay Industrial Estate and Botany Building Recyclers. Some of the existing landscape

trees located on the street frontage of McPherson Street would be removed as a result of the

Proposal, thereby removing some of the visual screening currently offered by the vegetation.

However, three of the established mature trees at the site entry on McPherson Street would be

retained, and a landscaping zone has been provided within the concept plan for the

development on the McPherson Street frontage. The purpose of the zone would be to provide a

screening effect from the street. Landscaping and visual screening would also be provided at

the Beauchamp Road entrance to the Site.

The visual impact of the Proposal is considered to be low overall, for a number of reasons:

The scale of the proposed terminal building is in keeping with the scale of other industrial

buildings of equivalent or greater scale in its immediate vicinity and of the existing

structures on Site.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The proposed use is perceptibly compatible with surrounding uses, such that potential

viewers are not likely to be highly sensitive to a further development of a similar nature.

Site lines from public areas into the Site are limited.

Light spill potential

As the Proposal would be operational for 24 hours, it would be necessary to provide lighting to

allow for the safe operation of the terminal. The area to the north-west of the Site that would be

used for container storage and loading of the trains would have the most potential for light spill

as the loading area would be open, with high levels of light (both horizontal and vertical planes)

to enable safe loading of the trains at night.

Australian Standard 4282 - Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting (AS 4282)

prescribes criteria for light spill (defined in lux) at the boundary of developments, in order to

maintain the amenity of the area. As the Proposal site is surrounded by commercial and

industrial developments, the appropriate criteria applicable to the Site boundary are the

‘commercial area’ criteria.

Table 2.1 of AS 4282 prescribes recommended maximum values for the control of obtrusive

light at commercial receivers for illumination emitted on a vertical plane (i.e. the amount of light

falling on a vertical surface). Under AS 4282 different lux levels are prescribed during ‘Pre-

curfew’ hours and ‘Curfewed hours’ with pre-curfew hours generally prescribed to be between

06:00 and 23:00. The higher, pre-curfew limits were developed to allow the operation of facilities

that require lighting, whilst giving passive recipients of spill light relief from it being excessively

obtrusive. Compliance with the lower curfewed hours limits are set to maintain the amenity and

environmental integrity of the area. The location of the Site means that lighting from the Site

would not fall on in the plane of the windows of habitable rooms of dwellings on nearby

residential properties; hence the single criterion of 25 lux is applicable to the Proposal.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 8-86 Outdoor lighting obtrusiveness criteria (Table 2.1, AS 4282)

Applicable conditions Commercial areas or at boundary of commercial

and residential areas

Pre curfew:

Limits apply at relevant boundaries of nearby

residential properties

25 lux

All exterior lighting design, developed during the detailed design phase for the Proposal, would

be such that the criteria identified in Table 8-86 would be achieved at the Site boundary.


During construction of the Proposal there is the potential for visual impacts from the viewpoints

of Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street as the existing vegetation would be removed from

the Site and its entrances. As noted in Section 8.6.4, above, temporary hoardings would be

installed at the Site entrances to minimise noise impacts on commercial receivers in the vicinity

of the Site. These would also act to reduce the visual impacts associated with construction of

the Proposal.

During the construction phase, cranes used for removal of the existing structures and

installation of the terminal building would be the most visible element on the Site. It is likely that

cranes would remain on Site for a period of 12 months.



Visual screening of the construction area from Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street

would be provided. This would include plywood hoardings and/or chain wire fence around

the perimeter of the worksite. The colour of the screening would be determined though

consultation with relevant stakeholders, including Botany Bay and Randwick City

Councils.

All works equipment and materials would be contained within designated boundaries of

the work Site.

The spread of stockpiles, waste, and vehicle parking would be minimised during

construction.

The construction Site would be left tidy at the end of each day.

Dust and dirt would be regularly cleaned from the road surface.


Although the potential visual impacts associated with the Proposal are considered to be limited,

a number of management and mitigation measures would be undertaken to ensure that the

Banksmeadow TT is perceptibly compatible with the wider Banksmeadow Industrial Precinct:

Highly reflective building surfaces, bright coloured surfaces and unpainted metal or

materials would be avoided for the transfer terminal building and offices.

Where possible, exterior light fittings would be installed in such a way that directs the light

downwards and minimises impacts on adjacent land users.

The transfer terminal building would be covered with light coloured Colourbond cladding

to reduce its prominence in upwards views against the sky. The Colourbond cladding

would be alternated with transclusent panels to reduce the building bulk. Veolia has



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

selected a pale eucalypt colour for the shed, however is willing to receive proposals from

the community regarding the appearance of the terminal building.

The cladding of the building would be robust and graffiti resistant. Additionally, the Site

would be fenced to prevent unauthorised entry of the Site by vandals.

The office building would be brick veneer, matching the existing office buildings on site.

A Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared showing landscape areas, planting zones,

retained trees and an indicative plant species list. In accordance with the Botany Bay

DCP (2013) Part 3L (Landscaping) and Part 10 (Landscape Technical Guidelines for

Development Sites) and a detailed (construction level) landscape documentation, Site

analysis and schedule of finishes would be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape

architect. The detailed landscape plan would provide for the following:

Three of the established mature trees of Corymbia citriodora (Lemon-scented

Gum) at the site entry on McPherson Street would be maintained to provide

screening.

Additional screen planting using native species would be undertaken along the

McPherson Street boundary of the Site to reduce the visibility of the proposed

building from the street.

The planting scheme for the Site will predominantly consist of native plants, with

locally indigenous species incorporated where practical and suitable. This will

exceed or at minimum meet the requirement in the DCP for at least 80% of a

planting scheme to consist of native plants.

A landscape maintenance schedule would be prepared and would cover a 12

month period and provide a guide to the Veolia on how to best maintain the

constructed landscape areas.

Provision of weed management to ensure a high quality environment would be

included in the landscape documentation.

Lighting design for the Proposal site would be such that the criteria prescribed in Table

2.1 of Australian Standard - AS 4282-1997, “Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor

Lighting” for commercial areas would be achieved at the Site boundary.

The maximum reflectivity of any glazing on street frontages would not exceed 20 per cent

to avoid nuisance in the form of glare to occupants of nearby buildings, pedestrians and

motorists.

Appropriate directional signage would be provided at the Site entrances to direct vehicles

and pedestrians safely around the Site. Signage for the Proposal would be designed to

relate, in size and form, to the scale of the transfer terminal, visibility and other

advertisements within the vicinity, including the Goodman’s Industrial Park and Botany

Industrial Park on Beauchamp Road. Signage would be designed such that there would

be no lighting overspill from the signs.

CONCLUSION 8.14.5

The industrial nature of the surrounding area means that the visual impact of the Proposal

would not be significant in the context of other buildings in the vicinity of the Site. Mitigation

measures have been identified to minimise the risk and consequences associated with the key

issues are summarise below:

Decreased amenity of the area: during construction of the Proposal there is potential for

visual impacts from the viewpoints of Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street. During

construction, visual screening of the Site from Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

would be provided. Detailed design of the Proposal would provide for landscaping in

accordance with Botany Bay City Council’s DCP and facades of the transfer terminal

building.

This Section has assessed the potential impacts on visual amenity associated with the

Proposal. With the mitigation measures identified above, impacts on visual amenity as a result

of the Proposal are considered to be low.

8.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

There are a number of future and proposed developments in the surrounding area that have

been identified in Section 4.3.2 of this EIS. These include:

Port Botany Expansion Project.

Orica – Southlands development.

Quenos – Botany Industrial Park.

Proposed Bunnings Warehouse, Hillsdale.

The cumulative impacts of the Proposal have been considered in relation to each of the

identified issues in Chapter 8 of the EIS. Impacts of the Proposal, particularly in relation to traffic

and air quality, have been considered in technical studies undertaken as part of this EIS. The

mitigation measures proposed in each of the chapters have been designed to:

Ameliorate potential impacts associated with individual risks.

Minimise the overall cumulative impacts of the development.

Potential cumulative impacts of the Proposal and the above-mentioned projects have been

considered and are summarised in Table 8-87.

Table 8-87 Summary of potential cumulative impacts and where they are addressed in the EIS

Issue Potential cumulative impacts Where mitigation

measures are

presented in the

EIS

Soils and

contamination

The soil erosion potential of the Proposal site has

been determined to be low; hence with the installation

of erosion and sediment controls, cumulative impacts

on water quality as a result of the construction phase

of the Proposal are not predicted.

The Proposal would improve the Site contamination

risk within the local area through the removal of the

UPSS.

Section 8.1.3

Topography, hydrology

and flooding

The Site has been assessed to have a low flood risk.

The existing flood storage levels on the Site have

been assessed (Appendix G) and the equivalent

volume of storage would be provided on the Site;

thereby offsetting the potential for flood impacts on

surrounding properties.

Section 8.2.3



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


measures are

presented in the

EIS

Traffic and access The traffic impact assessment undertaken by Hyder

Consulting (Appendix H) assessed the cumulative

traffic impacts which accounted for traffic growth due

to the Proposal, the predicted growth in background

traffic, as well as forecasted traffic from major land

use changes. The assessment found that there were

no further noted traffic impacts under a cumulative

assessment case in addition to those already

identified through the other assessments.

Section 8.3.3

Waste management The Proposal would provide alternative options for

waste disposal and recycling within the SSROC area,

providing a benefit for waste management.

Section 8.4.2

Noise and vibration The noise impact assessment undertaken by

Wilkinson Murray assessed the cumulative noise

impact of the Proposal (Appendix M). The

assessment concluded that compliance with the INP

amenity criteria indicates that operational noise from

the Proposal would not be expected to result in any

material increase in cumulative industrial noise levels

experienced by the existing residents.

Future developments in the local area would be

subject to the same assessment process as

discussed within the noise impact assessment report,

thereby limiting the potential for industrial noise

increasing over time and thereby limit the potential for

future cumulative noise impacts.

Section 8.6.3

Hazards and risks Veolia have reviewed the quantitative risk

assessment prepared for the BIP, and confirmed that

the Proposal site is compliant with the HIPAP No. 4

Risk Criteria for Land Use Planning. As chemicals are

not proposed to be stored on-site in excess of the

screening levels prescribed under Applying SEPP 33

the Proposal would not pose a cumulative risk to the

surrounding area.

Section 8.7.3

Air quality The Air Quality Assessment report, prepared by

Wilkinson Murray (2014) (Appendix L), concluded

dust emissions indicates that the scale of emissions

generated during the construction period and

operation of the facility would likely be minor and that

the predicted ground level odour concentrations

would not exceed the applicable assessment criteria.

Through the implementation of the mitigation

measures identified, the Proposal is unlikely to have a

cumulative impact on air quality.

Section 8.5.3



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


measures are

presented in the

EIS

Greenhouse gases The Proposal stands to create a net savings in

greenhouse gas emissions by redirecting waste out of

landfill, as indicated in the technical report

(Appendix O).

Section 8.8.3

Land use The proposal is consistent with the surrounding

industrial land use, in accordance with the

Banksmeadow Industrial Precinct and SEPP (Port

Botany) 2013 zoning.

Section 8.9.3

Biodiversity The Site supports low biodiversity values. No

threatened species, populations or communities were

identified on the Site, and there limited habitat value

for threatened species. Given that it is considered

highly unlikely that the Proposal would result in a

significant impact on threatened species, populations

or ecological communities, or their habitats, it is not

necessary to consider cumulative impacts.

Section 8.10.4

Indigenous heritage No items of Indigenous heritage significance have

previously been identified within the vicinity of the

Banksmeadow TT site. The Site has not been

identified by the Gadigal or Bediagal people as a site

of Indigenous heritage significance.

As discussed in Section 8.1, the soils of the Proposal

site are heavily disturbed and it is considered that

there is a low likelihood of relics or items of

Indigenous heritage significance prevailing at the Site.

Neither construction nor operation of Banksmeadow

TT would have an impact on existing Indigenous

Heritage items. It is unlikely that any new Indigenous

heritage items would be uncovered as a result of

either construction or operation, as the Site is already

highly disturbed. If any items of Aboriginal

significance are uncovered, mitigation measures are

to be implemented as per Section 8.4.3. It is not

necessary to consider cumulative impacts.

Section 8.11.3

Non-indigenous

heritage

The ‘Main Administration Building – “Orica” and

Mature Ficus’ are within close proximity of the Site,

located approximately 200m north-east of the Site.

Construction would take place only within the Site and

would therefore have no impact on these heritage

items.

There may be operational impacts associated with the

arrival and departure of trucks from the North and

East, as their route would include the intersection of

Denison Street and Beauchamp Road; however, the

likelihood of adverse impacts is low. As a result,

consideration of cumulative impacts is not required.

Section 8.12.3



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


measures are

presented in the

EIS

Socio-economic The construction of the Banksmeadow TT, in

conjunction with the other developments occurring in

the vicinity, would create new temporary employment,

contributing positively to the local economy.

Operation would also create additional employment

benefits in the longer-term.

Should construction of other projects occur at the

same time as the Proposal, increased levels of traffic,

noise, and air pollution may be experienced by local

residents. However, considering the low residential

density within the area, this impact is likely to be

minimal and localised to the surrounding industrial

area. The residential area with the greatest proximity

to the Site is located within the neighbouring suburb

of Matraville, approximately 250 metres to the north-

east.

Section 8.13.3 and

8.13.5

Visual impact There would be limited negative visual impact, as the

Proposal is perceptibly compatible with the

surrounding land uses (current, future and proposed).

8.14.4



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

9 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

A review and assessment of the residual environmental risk posed by the Proposal was

undertaken to identify the residual risk, once the mitigation measures identified in Section 8 are

applied.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

9.1 RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 9-88 Residual Environmental Risks

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk

Management/monitoring measures proposed Residual

risk

Soils and

Contamination

Site contamination and risk of

human and environmental health

risks from exposure.

Very High The RAP would be implemented for the Keiths Engineering land and a plan to

manage contamination would be prepared and implemented for the Asciano

land, to ensure the Site is suitable for use as a transfer terminal. The plans

would include an unexpected finds protocol and contingency measures to

manage other issues which may arise during the course of remediation and

redevelopment works.

A SEMP would be developed for the Keith Engineering land that would specify

measures for the on-going management, during operation, of contamination left

in-situ on the Site.

Low

Disturbance of potential acid

sulphate soils (PASS) causing

environmental harm

Moderate An Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) would be developed prior to

commencement of construction. All excavations with the potential to expose

PASS or AASS would be undertaken in accordance with the ASSMP.

Low

Erosion of soils from the Site

resulting in sedimentation within

stormwater and natural waterways

Very High A Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) would be

developed prior to commencement of construction, in accordance with the Blue

Book (Landcom, 2004). Progressive erosion and sediment control plans

(ESCPs) would be developed in accordance with the CSWMP to reflect

changes to the level of disturbance.

Low

Discharge of contaminated

groundwater from Site.

Very High Removal of PSH contaminated groundwater as encountered during excavation

works and removal of the UPSS and disposal at an appropriately licensed

facility.

Low

Stormwater Alterations to hydrology on-site

and discharge levels from Site,

resulting in increased flood levels

downstream.

High On-site detention (OSD) would be provided on-site to achieve Botany Bay City

Council’s requirement of 20% AEP ‘natural condition’ detention and to offset the

calculated flood storage volume of 810 m3.

Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

Release of leachate from

putrescible waste to stormwater

causing pollution of surface water.

High The leachate management system would be designed to maintain separation

between rainfall run-off and leachate at all times. A minimum 20 kL self-bunded

tank would be provided for collection of leachate from the transfer terminal

building and compactor area.

All excess leachate from the Site would be disposed of in accordance with

legislative requirements, through either a trade waste agreement or pumped

out and disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility.

Low

Traffic and

access

Increased traffic volumes and

frequency, including heavy

vehicles, placing pressure on

intersection and road capacities

within the vicinity of the Site.

High The requirements of the Roads Act and the Road Transport (General) Act

would be followed at all times, including notice requirements, consultation and

consent/concurrence requirements for works in, or closures of, public and

classified roads and the use of RAV routes for semi-trailers.

Veolia would enter into a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS for the upgrade

of the Beauchamp Road / Perry Street intersection. Detailed design of the

intersection upgrade works would be undertaken in accordance with the Works

Authorisation Deed and would be designed in accordance with RMS’ standards

and specifications.

During development of the detailed design of the Perry Street /Beauchamp

Road intersection upgrades, consideration would be given to the development

of engineered measures to restrict trucks using Perry Street to access the Site

from the east.

A Traffic Management Plan would be developed for the Proposal that would

specify the following:

Trucks accessing the Site would be strictly prohibited from using Perry Street.

An induction process and education program would be developed for the Site,

which would specify the access route restrictions.

Development of a monitoring an recording program and an enforcement

program that would provide for the monitoring and recording of vehicles

accessing the Site and provide a mechanism for retraining and reprimand of

drivers observed breaching the access restrictions or waste acceptance

Low

Reduction in road safety as a

result of increased number of

Moderate Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

heavy vehicles operating on the

road networks around the


requirements on the Site.

Development of a traffic congestion procedure, that would specify the

measures to be implemented to manage any potential traffic impacts on

neighbouring businesses. This procedure would be developed in consultation

with Botany Building Recyclers.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be developed for the

construction phase of the Proposal. The CTMP would form a sub-plan to the

CEMP and would prescribe locations for private worker vehicle parking during

construction works, access routes to the Site and notification requirements

during construction of the Proposal.

Vegetation on the western side of McPherson Street, at the intersection with

Beauchamp Road, would be cleared or trimmed, to re-instate a safe entering

sight distance sight line.

Veolia would liaise with Botany Bay City Council regarding the implementation

of kerb side parking restrictions on McPherson Street and adjust line-marking,

to allow vehicles to approach the intersection on a perpendicular angle.

Vegetation on the western side of McPherson Street, at the intersection with

Beauchamp Road, would be cleared or trimmed, to re-instate a safe entering

sight distance sight line.

Veolia would liaise with Botany Bay City Council regarding the implementation

of kerb side parking restrictions on McPherson Street and adjust line-marking,

to allow vehicles to approach the intersection on a perpendicular angle.

Accidents occurring on-site as a

result of light and heavy vehicles,

trains, reach stackers and

machinery operating within close

proximity.

Very High Hazards associated with design and construction of the Banksmeadow TT

would be managed through the Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), which

would be undertaken as part of the detailed design.

An OEMP would be developed for the proposal that would outline the safe

operational procedures for the Site.

Moderate

Operation of rail link not

accommodated within ARTC’s

High Discussions have confirmed that Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) has

sufficient train paths (Access) available for purchase to accommodate the

Moderate



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

network. Proposal train movements, and these access paths would be purchased on

approval of the Proposal by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

Waste

Management

Construction waste generation High Construction Waste Management Plan would be developed as part of the

CEMP. This would include the characterisation of construction waste streams,

procedures for managing construction waste, including handling, storage,

classification and tracking, ad procedures and targets for reuse and recycling of

waste materials.

Low

Disruption to operations Very High An Operational Contingency Plan would be incorporated into the OEMP and

would identify external factors that may disrupt the operation of the

Banksmeadow TT and prescribe measures to mitigate potential impacts

associated within disruption to operations.

Moderate

Release of leachate to stormwater High The leachate and stormwater management systems would be designed to

operate independently of each other and not mix.

Low

Receipt of non-conforming wastes

at the Site.

Moderate A Waste Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP and

would include procedures for screening of incoming loads and management of

non-conforming materials.

As part of the OEMP, Veolia would develop an enforcement program for

operation of the Proposal, which would include punitive measures for drivers

delivering non-conforming and unacceptable waste to the Proposal site.

Low

Noise and

Vibration

Noise and vibration created from

demolition, construction, operation

and road/rail transport.

Moderate Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be

developed as part of the CEMP. This would include the requirement for

provision of temporary hoardings along McPherson Street and Beauchamp

Road entries.

Operational Noise Management Plans for train operations and terminal

operations would be developed as part of the OEMP for the Proposal.

Low

Hazards and

risk

Occurrence of hazards or risks

on-site

High An IRP, Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and Pollution Incident Response

Management Plan (PIRMP) would be developed for both construction and

operation of the Proposal.

Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

Disturbance of asbestos during

construction

High Construction would be undertaken in accordance with the Work Health and

Safety (WHS) Act 2011

An asbestos management plan would be developed for the proposal containing

a risk assessment undertaken in accordance with Model Code of Practice –

How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace (Safe Work Australia

2011).

Where the management plan recommends the removal of asbestos from Site

all works would be undertaken in accordance with the Model Code of Practice –

How to Safely Remove Asbestos (Safe Work Australia 2011), including the

development of an asbestos removal control plan and an emergency plan. An

industrial hygienist would be involved in the development of this plan,

Veolia would engage a contractor who is appropriately qualified and competent

to ensure appropriate management of asbestos as outlined in the Model Code

of Practice – Storage and handling of Dangerous Goods (Safe Work Australia

2005).

The WorkCover Authority of NSW (WorkCover) would be notified in writing five

days before any licensed asbestos removal work is commenced. The

notification would be lodged by the licensed asbestos removalist. The Site

would be classified as friable or non-friable by a suitably qualified occupational

hygienist prior to the notification being prepared.

Moderate

Air Quality Odour, air pollutants, and dust

emitted during construction and

operation.

Moderate A Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP) would be developed as

a sub-plan to the CEMP, outlining measures to minimise dust emissions.

An Odour Management Plan would be developed as part of the OEMP and

would include a Procedure for Minimising Odour to ensure waste is managed to

minimise the generation of odours.

Low

Greenhouse

gases

Release of greenhouse gas

emissions.

Moderate Assess the feasibility of efficient electricity devices such as variable speed

drives and installation of energy efficient lighting.

Use of B20 biodiesel for diesel powered machinery on-site.

Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

Land use Site incompatible with surrounding

land uses

Low Detailed design of the Site entrance would be developed in consultation with

Asciano to provide adequate access for future land use development proposals

at the Asciano Botany Site.

Low

Biodiversity Reduced biodiversity as a result

of construction and/or operation.

Low The CEMP would include measures to minimise impacts on flora and fauna as

a result of construction of the Proposal.

A Landscape Plan would be developed during detailed design, in accordance

with the Draft Botany Bay DCP and the draft Landscape Technical Guidelines

for Development Sites (2013). Plant species to be used in landscaping will be

predominantly native, with locally indigenous species incorporated where

practical and suitable. Plant species will mainly be drawn from the lists in

appendices 1 and 2 of the draft guidelines, with additional native species

appropriate for bioretention basins as per relevant WSUD guidelines. Weed

and pest infestations identified during the operation of the proposal would be

managed in accordance with a Vermin and Pest Control Plan, which would

form part of the OEMP.

Low

Indigenous

heritage

Negative impact on Indigenous

heritage within the area.

Low If an item of Indigenous significance, or suspected significance, is discovered

during construction, all work in the vicinity of the area would cease and the

relevant Environmental Representative would be contacted to establish an

appropriate course of action. If the items are of Aboriginal origin the OEH is to

be notified.

Low

Non-

indigenous

heritage

Negative impact on non-

indigenous heritage within the

area.

Low If an item of non-Indigenous heritage significance, or suspected significance, is

discovered during construction, all work in that area would cease and the

relevant Environmental representative would be contacted to establish an

appropriate course of action.

In the event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works

would cease and the NSW police and NSW Coroner’s office would be

contacted.

Low

Social and Potential for negative social

impacts in relation to increased

Low Construction Mitigation Measures

Work hours would be limited to the following:

Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

economic traffic, noise, and air pollution

(including odour), as well as

decreased visual amenity.

7am to 6pm Monday to Friday

8am to 1pm Saturday

No work on Sundays and public holidays

Establishing communication pathways, including a dedicated phone line, email

address and section on Veolia’s website, to provide information regarding the

proposal.

Maintain communication with key government and community stakeholder

Ensuring landholders, within close proximity of the Site, are kept well informed

about the proposal, the construction hours and duration of the works.

Landholders would be provided relevant contact details to address queries

relating to the works

Mitigation measures addressing potential social impacts related to traffic, noise,

air quality and visual impacts are provided in Sections 8.3.4, 8.6.4, 8.5.4, 8.14.4

respectively.

Visual Decreased amenity of the area. Low During construction, visual screening of the Site from Beauchamp Road and

McPherson Street would be provided. This would include plywood hoardings

and/or chain wire fence around the perimeter of the worksite. The colour of the

screening would be determined though consultation with relevant stakeholders,

including Botany and Randwick City Councils.

Detailed design of the Proposal would provide for landscaping and facades of

the transfer terminal building in accordance with Botany Bay City Council’s

DCP.

Low

Cumulative

Impacts

Increased traffic volumes High The Traffic and Access Assessment considered cumulative traffic growth within the

vicinity of the Proposal and the mitigation measures are outlined in Section 8.3.4

and above under Traffic and access would offset impacts associated with

Banksmeadow TT.

Low

Increased number of

developments within the area

High Low

Increased stormwater runoff. Moderate Mitigation measures are outline in Section 8.2.4 and above under Stormwater.

Through the implementation of the measures proposed the quantity of stormwater

Low



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Issue Impact Pre-

mitigation risk


risk

leaving the Site would not alter.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

9.2 ASSESSMENT AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The following sections outline how the Proposal is consistent with the principles of ecologically

sustainable development.

Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle requires evaluation of the risks of serious or irreversible

environmental damage associated with a proposed development. The Banksmeadow TT has

been assessed with the purpose of reducing the risk of serious and permanent impacts on the

environment, including an evaluation of the risk-weighted consequences of alternatives and

options regarding the proposed development.

A number of alternatives for the Banksmeadow TT have been considered, including an

assessment of their risks and consequences (see Section 2.3). These alternatives include a

review of potential sites within the SSROC area to find the most suitable site for the proposed

development. This resulted in the determination that the proposed Banksmeadow TT site is the

most suitable, due to its proximity to rail and road, correct zoning and proximity to the waste

generation source. Consideration of alternatives also included a ‘Do Nothing’ option, allowing

the Southern Sydney region to rely on existing waste infrastructure, which would limit resource

recovery options, increasing the amount of waste going to landfill and allow a lack of

competition.

Specialist studies were undertaken to provide accurate information to assist with the evaluation

and development of the project, including:

Soils and contamination.


Traffic and access.

Air quality


Hazards and risk.

Greenhouse Gas assessment

Where a level of uncertainty was identified in the data used for the assessments, a conservative

worst-case scenario analysis was undertaken. These specialist studies did not identify any

issues that may cause serious and irreversible environmental damage as a result of the project.

In addition, a number of measures would be implemented to protect the environment, including:

The use of proven operating systems and pollution control structures.

Training of personnel.

Environmental auditing and environmental monitoring.

The development of contingency plans in the event that an unexpected situation, that

may negatively impact the environment, arises.

Inter-generational equity

The principle of inter-generational equity is concerned with ensuring that the health, diversity

and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

generations. The Banksmeadow TT site does not currently support a significant amount of

natural assets, containing limited native vegetation cover and minimal presence of native fauna.

The Proposal would provide for future developments within the Botany Bay and wider Southern

Sydney region. The Banksmeadow TT, and the associated Woodlawn Eco-Project site, would

have a working life that would extend to future generations, providing benefits for a number of

generations without relying on future generations to deal with waste disposal problems. Should

the Proposal not proceed, the principle of intergenerational equity may be compromised, as

future generations could inherit a higher cost for disposal and processing of waste, due to the

current lack of choice and competition in the region, as well as incurring limitations on resource

recovery and recycling options. The Banksmeadow TT would meet the demands for waste

treatment for local government and commercial industries, supporting source separation, and

enabling resource recovery targets to be achieved.

The Proposal’s method of waste transportation allows for the movement of waste out of Sydney

by rail, removing approximately 30,000 vehicles off Sydney roads per year (see Section 8.3).

In addition, the Banksmeadow TT would be constructed and operated according to high

environmental standards, as outlined within the CEMP and OEMP, to avoid or minimise any

adverse environmental impacts. Continuous improvements in these plans would be carried out

to ensure that best practice methods are being employed wherever possible, see 9.3.

Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

This principle stipulates that biological diversity and ecological integrity should be fundamentally

considered when assessing the impacts of a proposal. A comprehensive assessment of the

existing local environment at the Banksmeadow TT site has been undertaken to recognise any

potential impacts of the proposal on local biodiversity. The biodiversity assessment and

proposed mitigation measures have been outlined in Section 0.

The Site has been previously extensively disturbed, and is located within an industrial precinct.

No threatened flora or fauna listed under the EPBC Act or TSC Act have been recorded within

the ecological study area. Mitigation and management techniques have been developed for the

circumstance that any threatened flora or fauna species be discovered during construction. The

proposal is not considered to significantly impact on biological diversity or ecological integrity.

Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms

This principle requires that costs to the environment are incorporated or internalised in terms of

the overall project costs, ensuring that decision making takes into account the environmental

impacts. This EIS has examined the environmental consequences of the Proposal and identifies

mitigation measures for areas where adverse environmental impacts may occur. The

implementation of mitigation measures represents a capital and or operational cost for the

project, acting as a valuation in economic terms of environmental resources.

9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 9.3.1

In addition to the proposed mitigation measures outlined within this EIS, Veolia has developed

and implemented a National Integrated Management System (NIMS) to assist in meeting their

corporate objective of business through sustainable development. The NIMS documentation

has been developed to comply with:

ISO 9001 Quality Management – externally certified.

ISO 14001 Environmental Management – externally certified.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

The AS/NZS 4801 Occupational Health and Safety Management System – externally

certified.

All Veolia services and activities are carried out with the aim of minimising, to the greatest

extent possible, the risk of harm to any person or the environment. Appropriate risk

management processes are applied to; all workplaces, plants, substances, materials, tasks,

processes and associates systems of work. Across each Veolia site they provide a Site

Management Plan, including a Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) and

Operational Environmental Management Plans (OEMP), documenting the requirements of each

plant. These plans provide guidance on how to mitigate any impacts that may arise during the

construction or operation of the project. Veolia implements reporting and review systems to

monitor the operational efficiency and to ensure facilities maintenance procedures are properly

integrated into the clients operating schedules.

The management of the construction and operation of the Banksmeadow TT would endeavour

to employ best practice methods wherever possible. Consequently, strategies to continual

improve on Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), through monitoring and reviewing of

their effectiveness, would be employed.

All activities carried out on-site, either during the construction or operation phase of the project,

would comply with the relevant legislation and regulations. All necessary licenses and approvals

required under State legislation would be obtained, as outlined in Section 0.

CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMNT 9.3.2PLAN

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared for the Proposal

as the overarching document for management of environmental impacts during construction.

The CEMP would be prepared in accordance with Guideline for the Preparation of

Environmental Management Plans (DIPNR, 2004) and Veolia’s National Integrated System,

including AS/NZS ISO 14001 – Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001). The CEMP

for the Banksmeadow TT would set out the processes to meet all regulatory requirements and

to achieve mitigation measures identified in this EIS, in an effective manner.

Specific mitigation measures to address key environmental aspects would be captured within

the environmental aspect sub-plans that would be developed to capture the mitigation

measures outlined in the following sections. The CEMP and would generally take the format

illustrated in Figure 9-48.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

CEMP Environmental Management Plans

Guiding Documents

ISO 14001:2004LegislationConditions of

Approval

Environmental

Assessment(s)

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

Contamination management plans

Environmental Work Method Statements

Construction Air Quality Management Plan

Monitoring and

Reporting

Construction Pollution Incident Response

Management Plan

Inductions and

Training

Environmental

Requirements

Responsibilities

Environmental Procedures

Construction Soil and Water Management Plan

Construction Traffic Management Plan

Construction Waste Management Plan

Construction Asbestos Management Plan

Figure 9-48 Indicative CEMP structure for the Proposal

The following sections outline the content of the sub-plans that would form part of the CEMP.

Construction Traffic Management Plan

The construction phase of the Proposal would generate the traffic movements for the Site

preparation, earthworks drainage and utilities, pavement terminal building construction, and rail

construction. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be implemented prior to

and during the construction phase to manage traffic movements.

The CTMP would detail mitigation measures that would be implemented during construction of

the Banksmeadow TT. These would include:

Allowance for parking facilities at the construction compound and worksites.

Promotion of the use of public transport and reducing general Site vehicle movements.

This would minimise the number of construction related movements to and from the Site.

A traffic controller would be located at each of the truck entry and exit points to assist with

traffic movements during construction.

The CTMP would be prepared in accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic

Management and RMS supplements.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Construction Air Quality Management Plan

A Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP) would be included in the CEMP to

outline air quality and dust management procedures to mitigate the impacts for the following

components during the construction of the Banksmeadow TT.

The AQMP would include the following mitigation measures to minimise air quality impacts

during construction:

Increasing the moisture content of the soil/surface to reduce emissions from Site clearing,

particularly during dry and windy conditions.

Modifying work practices during periods of adverse weather (hot, dry and windy

conditions).

Completing rehabilitation and Site stabilisation as quickly as possible.

Minimising the number of stockpiles on-site and number of work faces on stockpiles.

Use of water sprays for dusty activities such as fill placement and compacting.

Modify or cease demolition activities during periods of adverse weather (hot, dry and

windy conditions).

Boundary monitoring in accordance with the Asbestos Management Plan, developed in

accordance with How to manage and control asbestos in the workplace: Code of practice

for the demolition of buildings containing asbestos.

Confining all on-site vehicles to designated speed limits.

Controlling and reducing trip frequency and distance by coordinating delivery and removal

of materials to avoid unnecessary trips, where possible.

Cleaning dirt that has been tracked onto sealed roads as soon as practicable.

Dirt track-out should be managed using shaker grids and / or wheel cleaning. Dirt tracked

onto roads should be cleaned as soon as practicable.

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) would be developed to

implement best practice mitigation and management measures to minimise noise impacts on

surrounding land uses and sensitive receivers. This management plan would address the

following construction components:

Construction hours: All construction activities would have regard to the standard hours of

7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday, and 8:00 am to 1:00 pm Saturday (with approval

from relevant authorities). Any works undertaken outside of these hours would be

undertaken in consultation with relevant authorities, such as RMS, ARTC and utility

providers. Works outside these hours that may be permitted would include:

- Any works which do not cause noise emissions to be audible at any nearby sensitive

receptors.

- The delivery of materials which is required outside of these hours as requested by

Police or other authorities for safety reasons. Local residents would be informed of

the timing and duration of approved works in accordance with the Veolia’s notification

provisions.

- Emergency work to avoid the loss of lives, property and/or to prevent environmental

harm.

- Any other work as approved through the CNVMP.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Training and awareness: Site awareness training/environmental inductions would be

considered in the plan as preventative actions to provide instruction on noise mitigation

techniques/measures during the construction of the Banksmeadow TT.

The following measure would be included in the plan to minimise noise and vibration from

the machinery use construction component:







Communication, including a notification process to inform residents of the timing and

duration of noisy activities.

Completion of loading and unloading activities away from sensitive receivers.

Use of spotters, closed circuit television monitors, “smart” reversing alarms, or “squawker”

type reversing alarms in place of traditional reversing alarms

Included in preparation of the CNVMP, testing would be undertaken to establish vibration

impacts on adjacent receivers, particularly the Botany Building Recyclers and the

Goodman Industrial Park.

Construction Soil and Storm Water Management Plan

The Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) outline the management

systems to capture and treat runoff during construction a description of the proposed sediment

and erosion controls, incorporating measures to be implemented and their location. The

CSWMP would be developed prior to commencement of construction, in accordance with the

Blue Book (Landcom, 2004). Progressive erosion and sediment control plans (ESCP) would be

developed in accordance with the CSWMP to reflect changes to the level of disturbance.

An Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) would be developed prior to commencement

of construction. Construction workers would be instructed on the identification of PASS and ASS

during the Site induction and the requirements of the ASSMP. The plan would require works to

cease in the vicinity of any unexpected potential acid sulphate soils and an environmental

consultant to be notified and requested to advise on the appropriate course of action. The

ASSMP would contain the following:

Identification of acid sulphate soils.

Construction methodologies to minimise disturbance and exposure of PASS.

Treatment and neutralisation of PASS.

Contamination management plans

The RAP (Douglas Partners, 2013) would be implemented on the Keith Engineering land. A

plan would also be developed and implemented for the Asciano land, which would detail the

measures to manage the contamiantion identified on the Asciano land, to ensure the Site is

suitable for use as a transfer terminal.

These plans would clearly describe the works necessary to manage or remediate the

contamination identified at each Site and include an unexpected finds protocol and contingency

measures to manage other issues which may arise during the course of redevelopment works.

The plans would be subject to review and approval of a NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

As part of the RAP for the Keith Engineering site and the plan for the Asciano site, a Health and

Safety Plan and risk assessment would be developed and implemented prior to construction

commencing and all construction workers and staff would be inducted into the plan. The Health

and Safety Plan would include details of site contamination, risks and management measures

prior to work commencing. The plan would also outline the difference between inhalation and

other pathways where contact with contaminants is possible (e.g. ingestion, dermal absorption)

and measures to minimise exposure pathways, including identification of appropriate personal

protective equipment to be worn during remediation works.

Construction Asbestos Management Plan

An asbestos management plan would be developed for the construction of the Proposal

containing a risk assessment undertaken in accordance with Model Code of Practice – How to

Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace (Safe Work Australia 2011). The plan would

include the following:

Identification of the location of asbestos and any naturally occurring asbestos.

The decisions and reasons for decisions, about the management of asbestos at the

workplace for example safe work procedures and control measures.

Outline the procedures for incidents and emergencies involving asbestos, including who

is responsible.

An outline of how asbestos risks would be controlled, including consideration of

appropriate control measures.

A timetable for managing risks of exposure, including dates and procedures for the review

of the asbestos management plan and activities that could affect the timing of a review.

Identify persons with responsibilities and their responsibility under the asbestos

management plan.

Air monitoring procedures during demolition works.

Construction Pollution Incident Response Plan

A CPIRP would be required for construction of the Proposal and would document the following:

A description of the likelihood of hazards at the Site.

Pre-emptive actions to be taken to minimise or prevent any risk of harm to human health

or the environment.

An inventory of pollutants kept on the Site.

A description and inventory of safety and environmental equipment stored on-site to

control pollution incidents.

Contact details for the EPA, NSW Ministry of Health, Work Cover, NSW Fire and Rescue,

and Botany Bay City Council for immediate notification in the event of an incident that

threatens environmental harm.

Details of the mechanisms that would be used for providing early warnings and regular

updates to the owners and occupiers of premises who may be affected by an incident

occurring on the premises.

A detailed map showing the location of the premises, the surrounding area that would

likely be affected by a pollution incident, the location of potential pollutants on the

premises, the location of any stormwater drains on the premises, and the discharge

locations of the stormwater drains to the nearest watercourse or water body.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

A description of the actions that would be taken by Veolia immediately after a pollution

incident to reduce or control any pollution.

Details on the nature and objectives of any staff training program on implementing the

PIMRP.

Environmental Work Method Statements and Environmental Procedures would be developed as

appropriate to facilitate the implementation of the CEMP and sub-plans.

OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.3.3

As part of the Veolia’s National Integrated Management System a set of operating procedures

would be developed and implemented for the Banksmeadow TT, forming the Site’s Operational

Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). The OEMP would comply with any relevant

legislation, and Conditions of Consent. In addition it would provide for a summary of monitoring

and reporting regimes. It would act as a working environmental management tool for the

operation of the Site, concentrating on the key environmental issues, including detailed plans for

the following:


Odour Management Plan


Dust Management Plan

Traffic Management Plan

Vermin and Pest Control Plan

Stormwater Management Plan

Incident Response Plan

Noise Management Plan

The following sections outline the content of the sub-plans that would form part of the OEMP:


The WMP would outline waste management procedures, including details of proposed

classification and quantity of waste that would be received, generated, handled or processed at

the Banksmeadow TT, and how this waste would be stored, sorted and disposed of. In addition,

the environmental impacts associated with the management would be assessed and controls for

managing these impacts and activities would be outlined.

The following are the key management issues would be included in the Banksmeadow TT

WMP:

Screening of waste.

Waste rejection.

Priority handling of waste.

Cleaning of vehicles.

Wind-blown matter.


Fire Water management.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Odour Management Plan

The Odour Management Plan (OMP) would outline Veolia’s strategies to minimise any potential

and perceived odour impacts at sensitive receivers, and provide detail of ongoing odour

management procedures whilst the Banksmeadow TT remains in operation.

As part of the main component of the Proposal an Odour Control System would be installed

within the transfer terminal building. The Banksmeadow TT OMP would contain the details of

the design and main components of the system including its location on the Site and other

specifications. The OMP would also contain the Operation Protocol for the Odour Control

System.

In addition, the following odour measures and procedures would be outlined in Veolia’s OMP:

Management of Waste – Procedures for Minimising Odour and Container Maintenance.

Maintenance and Repair – Odour Control System Operation and Maintenance, and

Container Filter Maintenance.

Additional Measures – Controls for customer trucks accessing the Banksmeadow TT.

Operational Contingency Plan.

Measures outlined in Veolia’s OMP would be aligned to the WMP and Traffic Management Plan

(TMP).


An Operational Contingency Plan would be incorporated into the OEMP and would include the

following:

Identification of internal and external factors that may disrupt the operation of the

Banksmeadow TT.

Identification of the potential operational impacts associated with operational disruption.

Prescribe measures to mitigate potential impacts associated with disruption to operations

Notification of the EPA on 131 555 in the event of unscheduled disruptions to the

operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

Dust Management Plan

Dust Management Plan (DMP) would document strategies to minimise potential dust emissions

from the Proposal’s operations. Both preventative and responsive control measures would be

identified in the plan, including:

All trucks entering and leaving the premises carrying loads must be covered at all times,

except during loading and unloading.

Good dust management procedures would be implemented within the terminal building

including regular sweeping and washing down, as required.

Good dust management procedures outside of the Terminal building, and the general

Site including regular sweeping to remove dust and other debris.

Training of all staff and personnel accessing the Site in the need to minimise dust

generation.

Use of a fine mist dust suppression system within the building, when there are particularly

dust loads or noticeable dust levels, as required.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Review of any complaints received relating to dust and reports from monitoring conducted

as a result.

Monthly toolbox meetings to discuss safety and environmental issues, including dust

issues, which have arisen since the previous meeting.

Air quality and dust monitoring procedures would be outlined in the plan and monitored

with respect to the NSW Government Regional Ambient Air Quality and EPA criteria for

allowable dust deposition.

The components of the dust suppression system and the standard operational

procedures for Site personnel to operate and maintain the system would be documented

within the DMP.

Traffic Management Plan

The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would establish monitoring programs and control

measures for the delivery of waste to the Banksmeadow TT by the drivers and owners of waste

delivery vehicles.

The following components would be outlined in the Banksmeadow TT TMP:

Site description

Operation hours

Control strategies

Control measures that would be considered as part of the plan include the following:

A traffic study to review the first 12 month of operation.

Implementation of Education Program for the prohibition of the use of Perry Street, and

transport routes, including heavy vehicle access restrictions across the surrounding road

network

Monitoring and reporting to monitor and record the movement of vehicles accessing the

Site and to monitor transport routes.

An Enforcement Program which would include imposition of punitive measures for

breaching traffic restrictions.

Vermin and Pest Control Plan

The Vermin and Pest Control Plan (VPCP) would establish Veolia’s monitoring programs and

control strategies to minimise the attraction of vermin and pests to the Site, and to prevent the

degradation of local amenity. The pest control program would be developed in consultation with

neighbouring industry. Methods of control would include preventative and responsive mitigation

measures, reporting strategies and housekeeping practices.

The plan would also establish the operational controls for the type of chemicals used including

pesticides, poisons and other chemicals, and pest control contractors’ responsibility for

maintaining a bait and trap map that would be updated by Veolia annually. The VPCP would

address the following issues:

All waste in the tipping and handling areas would be cleaned daily.

Catch drains and drainage pits would be cleaned regularly.

On-site waste storage and handling would be minimised as far as practicable.

Routine inspections would be undertaken to identify potential vermin habitats.

Commercial pest and vermin control specialists would be used regularly.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Routine litter patrols and the use of a street sweeper would be undertaken to collect trash

on-site, around the perimeter, on immediately adjacent properties and on approach

roads.

Stormwater Management Plan

The objectives of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) are to provide details regarding the

stormwater management on-site and the maintenance of the stormwater management system.

The SMP would include a description, including the position of any intakes and discharges,

volumes, water quality and frequency of all stormwater discharges. The SMP would also outline

the maintenance requirements for the WSUD measures adopted on-site.

The SMP would also detail the monitoring actions that would be aligned to Veolia’s

Environmental Monitoring Program). A plan of the Banksmeadow TT stormwater system,

maintenance procedure and details for pollution control would be included.

Incident Response Plan

The Incident Response Plan (IRP) would provide procedures for controlling and minimising

potential risks in the event of a range of incidents. The IRP would address response procedures

for all hazards and risks identified in Section 8.7. Should an incident involve, or threatens,

material harm to the environment procedure outlined within the IRP would be compliant with

requirements within the POEO Act 1997 to notify the EPA and all other relevant authorities

immediately.

The emergency response and incident management protocols outlined in the IRP would be

developed in accordance with AS 3745 - 2010 Planning for emergencies in facilities would cover

the following types of emergency or incident:

Workplace health and safety.

On-site spills or leaks.

Off-site discharges.

Hazardous materials/dangerous goods.

Flooding.

Fire.

Derailment.

Container fall.

Road incidents.

An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) would form an appendix to the IRP and would address

the following:

In the event of an emergency or incident, the general management strategy that would be

adopted in the ERP to minimise the risk to the public and all personnel in the event of an

emergency would include:

Providing adequate resources including staffing and fire fighting equipment.

Ensuring that all relevant employees would be familiar with the PIRMP.

Training staff so that a high level of preparedness would be maintained by all people who

could be involved in an emergency.

Periodic review and update of emergency procedures for the Site.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

A PIRMP, in the form identified for the construction phase above, would also be developed for

the operational phase of the Proposal and would form an appendix to the IRP.

Noise Management Plan

A Noise Management Plan for Rail Operations (RNMP) would be developed by Veolia to identify

mitigating strategies for operational rail noise, including container handling relating to the

Terminal’s operations.

This plan would be developed in conjunction with Pacific National, the rail operator for the

Clyde-Woodlawn Eco-Project site and in consultation with Auburn City Council, and covers the

rail operations directly attributable to the Terminal, which include:

Container handling management;

Loading and unloading of containers onto and from trains;

Rail movements relating to these containers on adjacent tracks

Hardstand and track maintenance

Control measures that are considered in the plan include the following:

Noise mitigation practices

A Container Management Protocol

Plant and Equipment Measures

Scheduling of trains

Physical Improvements

As part of the RNMP an employee education program has been considered for all train drivers

and other rail staff dedicated to transporting containers to and from the Terminal for the

implementation of noise mitigation measures.

As part of Veolia’s integrated management system a Noise Management Plan for the

Banksmeadow Terminal operations would also be developed. The Terminal Noise Management

Plan (TNMP) would identify operational controls and corrective actions in relation to noise

activities at the proposed transfer terminal.

In addition, noise monitoring procedures would be included in the TNMP and would consist in

the following:

Noise emission level checks

Truck speed limit

Unloading and compaction of the waste

Training for operators regarding potential noise problems.

Procedures for noise measurement accompanied by meteorological measurements

Instrumentation and measurement procedures

Additionally, noise monitoring procedures for plant and equipment, and vehicles emissions

would be developed.

9.4 MONITORING AND REPORTING

Veolia would undertake monitoring during the construction and operational phases of the

Proposal to identify the impacts of the Proposal and provide opportunity to implement

continuous improvement strategies. Monitoring and reporting would be carried out within the

structure of Veolia’s ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 accredited management systems. Evaluation of



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

the monitoring results for environmental impacts enables the assessment of broader, long term

changes as a result of the Proposal and provides the means to compare predicted

environmental impacts with actual impacts.

Examples of the Banksmeadow TT construction and operational impacts that would be

monitored include:

Dust emissions.

Odour emissions.

Stormwater discharge water quality.

Noise emissions.

Construction and operating hours.

Vermin and pests.

The assessment of impacts included in this EIS document identify that the Proposal is

anticipated to have a predominantly minor or manageable impact on the environment. A

Monitoring and Auditing Program would be developed for the Proposal to identify the methods,

locations, frequency, criteria and reporting requirements for the Site. The monitoring

requirements and criteria would be established by the EPA through the EPL process for both

the construction and operational phases of the Site.

Audit requirements, audit frequency and responsible personnel would also be defined. This

monitoring strategy would assist in verification of the effectiveness of the impact mitigation

strategies and provide a means for progressive performance reporting.

Additionally, the monitoring strategy would enable proactive identification of any corrective

actions or continuous improvement opportunities in order to avoid incidents, respond to

complaints and enhance beneficial outcomes from the Proposal.

The outcomes of the monitoring program would be reviewed annually to determine the

effectiveness of the mitigation measures employed. The process for continual improvement and

adaptive management that would be adopted for the on-going monitoring and management of

impacts associated with the Proposal is outlined in Figure 9-49. An auditing program would be

developed for the Banksmeadow TT and would include further detail on the adaptive

management process. The management process for the Banksmeadow TT would be developed

to comply with ISO 9001 Quality Management, ISO 14001 Environmental Management and the

AS/NZS 4801 Occupational Health and Safety Management System.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Action

Investigate

Assess Risk (s)

Reassess management

plans / strategies

Implement revised management plans/

strategies

Monitor effectiveness of new measures

Procedure

Identify / define the issue

Identify the environmental risk from site activities

Identify mitigation measures to address risk

Implement measures identified

Assess monitoring of mitigation

measures

If mitigation measures are not effective, re-assess risk and actions

Figure 9-49 Adaptive management through monitoring



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

10 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Measures to mitigate the predicted environmental impacts associated with construction and

operation of the Banksmeadow TT have been proposed in Section 8. On approval of the

Proposal by P&I, Veolia will implement the following mitigation measures.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Table 10-89 Summary of mitigation measures

Environmental issue Mitigation measures

Soils and contamination Construction mitigation measures

A Health and Safety Plan and risk assessment would be developed and implemented prior to construction commencing and all construction

workers and staff will be inducted into the plan. The Health and Safety Plan will include details of Site contamination, risks and management

measures prior to work commencing. The plan will also outline the difference between inhalation and other pathways where contact with

contaminants is possible (e.g. ingestion, dermal absorption) and measures to minimise exposure pathways, including identification of appropriate

personal protective equipment to be worn during remediation works.

Implementation of the Douglas Partners 2013 RAP for the Keith Engineering land and development & implementation of plan for management of

contamination identified on Asciano land, to ensure the Proposal site is suitable for use as a transfer terminal. These plans will clearly describe the

works necessary to remediate the contamination identified at each site and including an unexpected finds protocol and contingency measures to

manage other issues which may arise during the course of remediation and redevelopment works. The plans will be subject to review and

approval of a NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor. At a minimum the remedial works will include:

- Investigation and assessment of the extent semi-volatile and volatile organic compound concentrations in groundwater, particularly in relation to

future remediation and excavation works at the Site and the potential for vapour intrusion into buildings.

- Investigation of additional, currently unidentified UPSS or USTs present on the Site and the aboveground petroleum on the Asciano land. These

investigations will be undertaken by a Validation Consultant during Site establishment.

- Removal of the UPSS and associated infrastructure in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 4976-2008: The removal and disposal of

underground petroleum storage tanks and under the supervision of an Environmental Consultant, specialising in remediation.

- Removal of any mobile PSH observed during construction to the extent practicable and disposal at an appropriate facility.

- Removal of residual PSH observed during the UPSS removal works, through excavation and off-site disposal, or on-site treatment if necessary.

- Removal of PSH contaminated groundwater as encountered during excavation works and removal of the UPSS and disposal at an appropriately

licensed facility.

- Removal of other contaminated soils not considered suitable for on-site capping due to potential risks to groundwater or human health (related to

vapour intrusion) and disposal at an appropriately licensed facility in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines.

- On-site capping of contaminated soils that are not considered to present an on-going risk to groundwater or human health if retained on-site,

including asbestos contaminated soils.

Remedial works undertaken on the Proposal site will be subject to a Site Auditor Statement, certifying that the works undertaken have rendered

the Site suitable for use as a waste transfer terminal.

Veolia will consult with the EPA and Orica regarding the interaction of construction and remediation works associated with the Proposal to ensure

that any dewatering activities associated with construction and dewatering do not conflict with the Orica Voluntary Management Plan remediation



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


works.

Disposal of asbestos containing material and soils will be undertaken by a licensed asbestos removalist.

A Construction Soil and Water Management Plan (CSWMP) will be developed prior to commencement of construction, in accordance with the

Blue Book (Landcom, 2004). Progressive erosion and sediment control plans (ESCP) will be developed in accordance with SWMP to reflect

changes to the level of disturbance. Strategies adopted in the SWMP will include the following:

Installation of drainage infrastructure and sediment and erosion controls prior to construction commencing.

Where possible, run-on water from upslope lands will be diverted around the Site while land disturbance activities are being carried out.

Water flows on-site will be directed, where possible, across the Site at non-erodible velocities, and stormwater drainage works will be employed to

convey stormwater through and away from the Site. Permanent or temporary drainage works will be installed early in the construction program to

minimise uncontrolled drainage and associated erosion.

If required, construction sediment basins will be located and sized in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom, 2004) and constructed prior to

commencement of Site disturbance.

Areas of exposed soil will be limited to those areas being actually worked.

Stockpiles will be located away from flow paths on appropriate impermeable surfaces, to minimise potential sediment transportation. Where

practicable, stockpiles will be stabilised, if in place for more than ten days, and will be formed with sediment filters in place immediately

downslope.

Disturbed areas will be stabilised as soon as practicable.

Earthworks will not take place during or after heavy rain, if the activity is likely to cause soil erosion or structural damage.

The wheels of all vehicles will be cleaned prior to exiting the construction Site where excavation occurs to prevent the tracking of mud. Where this

is not practical, or excessive soil transfer occurs onto paved areas, street cleaning will be undertaken when necessary.

Excavated material will be reused on-site where possible (subject to the provisions of the remedial action plan). Any excavated material that

requires disposal will be subject to waste classification under the DECCW Waste Classification Guidelines 2009 and will be disposed of at an

appropriate licensed facility.

An Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan (ASSMP) will be developed prior to commencement of construction. Construction workers will be

instructed on the identification of PASS and ASS during the Site induction and the requirements of the ASSMP. The plan will require works to

cease in the vicinity of any unexpected potential acid sulphate soils and an environmental consultant to be notified and requested to advise on the

appropriate course of action.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03



A Site Environmental Management Plans (SEMP) would be prepared and implemented for the Keith Engineering land, with provisions for on-going

regular inspection and maintenance of the capped contaminated soils. The SEMPs would be reviewed and approved by a NSW EPA accredited

Site auditor.

Appropriate mitigation measures for stormwater runoff detention will be implemented, reducing the risk of erosion and sedimentation as a result of

excessive runoff. These measures are outlined in Section 8.2.4.

The diesel tank will be self-bunded and compliant with AS - 1940-2004 The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids. The diesel

fuel tank and refuelling area will be appropriately bunded and all refuelling will take place within this area.

An Incident Response Plan (IRP) will be developed for operation of the Site. The plan will specify the procedure to be followed in the event of a

spill, including the notification requirements and use of absorbent material to contain the spill. A spill kit will be provided on-site at all times.

A refuelling procedure will be developed and implemented for all refuelling activities undertaken. Any fuel, lubricant, or hydraulic fluid spillages will

be collected using absorbent material and the contaminated material disposed of to a licensed waste facility.

Hydrology and Flooding Operational mitigation measures

The leachate management system will be designed to maintain separation between rainfall run-off and leachate at all times. A minimum 20 kL

self-bunded tank will be provided for collection of leachate from the transfer terminal building and compactor area.

The compactor areas will be fully covered to limit the generation of leachate. A leachate injection system will be incorporated into the compactors

to facilitate the transport of leachate to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site.

OSD will be provided on-site to achieve Botany Bay City Council’s requirement of 20% AEP ‘natural condition’ detention and to offset the

calculated flood storage volume of 810 m3.

WSUD measures will be included within the detailed design for the Site and will include the provision of biorentention basins and oil and grease

interceptors within the new drainage pits.

All excess leachate from the Site will be disposed of in accordance with legislative requirements, through either a trade waste agreement or

pumped out and disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility.

The diesel fuel tank and refuelling area will be appropriately bunded. All refuelling will take place within this area.

An Incident Response Plan (IRP) will be developed for the Site and will form a sub-plan to the OEMP. The IRP will contain a ‘spill response

procedure’.

Traffic and Access Construction mitigation measures

A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be developed for the construction phase of the Proposal. The CTMP will form a sub-plan to

the CEMP and will prescribe locations for private worker vehicle parking during construction works, access routes to the Site and notification



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


requirements during construction of the Proposal.


The requirements of the Roads Act and the Road Transport (General) Act will be followed at all times, including notice requirements, consultation

and consent/concurrence requirements for works in, or closures of, public and classified roads and the use of RAV routes for semi-trailers.

Veolia will enter into a Works Authorisation Deed with RMS for the upgrade of the Beauchamp Road / Perry Street intersection. Detailed design of

the intersection upgrade works will be undertaken in accordance with the Works Authorisation Deed and will be designed in accordance with RMS’

standards and specifications.

The Site Access will provide access for future land use development proposals on the Asciano land, to the immediate north of the Banksmeadow

TT site. Detailed design for the Site Access via a single shared Beauchamp Rd Intersection will be designed for Veolia’s required traffic

movements plus a minimum of 100 traffic movements (in & out) per hour for the remaining portion of the Asciano Site not being leased by Veolia.

During development of the detailed design of the Perry Street /Beauchamp Road intersection upgrades, consideration will be given to the

development of engineered measures to restrict trucks using Perry Street to access the Site from the east.

Vegetation on the western side of McPherson Street, at the intersection with Beauchamp Road, will be cleared or trimmed, to re-instate a safe

entering sight distance sight line.

Veolia will liaise with Botany Bay City Council regarding the implementation of kerb side parking restrictions on McPherson Street and adjust line-

marking, to allow vehicles to approach the intersection on a perpendicular angle.

Interconnectivity will be provided within the Proposal site between the McPherson Street entry and the Perry Street / Beauchamp Road access to

the Banksmeadow TT.

Detailed design of the Site will provide for appropriate queuing space provided the approach to the Perry Street/ Beauchamp Road access and

provide layover areas for staggering dispatch of trucks.

A Traffic Management Plan will be developed for the Proposal that will specify the following:

- Trucks accessing the Site will be strictly prohibited from using Perry Street.

- An induction process and education program will be developed for the Site, which will specify the access route restrictions.

- Development of a monitoring an recording program and an enforcement program that will provide for the monitoring and recording of vehicles

accessing the site and provide a mechanism for retraining and reprimand of drivers observed breaching the access restrictions or waste

acceptance requirements on the site.

- Development of a traffic congestion procedure for McPherson Street, that will specify the measures to be implemented to manage any potential

traffic impacts on neighbouring businesses. This procedure will be developed in consultation with Botany Building Recyclers.

Asciano will secure rail access from ARTC on behalf of the Proposal from ARTC prior to commencement of operation of the Proposal. .



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Waste management Construction mitigation measures

A Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) will form a sub-plan to the CEMP and will include the following information:

- Characterisation of construction waste streams.

- Management of hazardous waste streams, including asbestos, contents of the UPSS, contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater.

- Procedures to manage construction waste streams, including handling, storage, classification and tracking.

- Mitigation measures for avoidance and minimisation of waste materials.

- Procedures and targets for reuse and recycling of waste materials.

- Roles and responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the CWMP.

- Training, monitoring, reporting and reviewing requirements to ensure compliance with the CWMP.


A Waste Management Plan (WMP) will be incorporated into the OEMP, which will include the following information:

- Characterisation of waste streams accepted at the facility

- Procedures for weighbridge activities – including screening of incoming loads, weighing of incoming and outgoing vehicles, weighbridge data

recording and archiving, and weighbridge inspection schedule.

- Tipping procedures for each waste stream – including screening and scavenging.

- Procedures for management of non-conforming loads and materials.

- Procedures for ensuring the Site remains clean and tidy.

- Procedures for loading materials – including front end loader operation, loading of non-putrescible waste into semi-trailers, loading of putrescible

waste into compactors, compacting and containerising operations.

- Procedures for rail transport – loading and unloading of containers.

- Operational contingencies – should any Site activity undergo a temporary shutdown.

- Roles and responsibilities for compliance with the WMP.

- Procedures for inspection, monitoring, review and auditing to ensure compliance with the WMP.

An Operational Contingency Plan will be incorporated into the OEMP will include the following:

- Identification of internal and external factors that may disrupt the operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

- Identification of the potential operational impacts associated with operational disruption.

- Prescribe measures to mitigate potential impacts associated with disruption to operations



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


- Notification of the EPA on 131 555 in the event of unscheduled disruptions to the operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

Air quality Construction mitigation measures

An Air Quality Management Plan will be developed as a subplan to the CEMP and will contain the following management measures:

- Burning off of materials will be strictly prohibited on-site.

- Engines of on-site vehicles and plant will be switched off when not in use.

- Construction machinery and vehicles on-site will be maintained and serviced according to the manufacturer’s specifications.

- During hauling activities, the following controls will be in place:

- Watering of unsealed haul roads

- Sealed haul roads to be cleaned regularly

- Restrict vehicle traffic to designated routes

- Impose speed limits

- Covering vehicle loads when transporting material off-site

- During material handling activities the drop heights of materials from loading and handling equipment will be minimised.

- During construction activities requiring exposed surfaces and stockpiling the following controls will be in place:

- Minimise area of exposed surfaces.

- Water suppression on exposed areas and stockpiles.

- Minimise amount of stockpiled material.

- Where possible apply barriers, covering or temporary rehabilitation.

- Rehabilitate completed sections as soon as practicable.


An air extraction system will service the putrescible waste area, within the northern end of the building, and will manage odour through a single

exhaust point. The ventilation system for the putrescible waste area of the transfer terminal building will have a single vent stack that will extend to

a height of 21 m with a diameter of 2.6 m and be designed to have an exit velocity from the stack of 20 m/s to ensure that the odour emissions

from the facility are consistent with the odour criteria prescribed in the EPA Air Quality Guidelines.

Plastic strips will be installed on the doorways to help contain odour and dust within the terminal building, which will cover the upper third of the

opening.

Containers used for the transport of putrescible waste will be specially constructed and have activated carbon filtration packs fitted to the air



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


exhaust vent on the container.

An Odour Management Plan will be developed as part of the OEMP and will include a Procedure for Minimising Odour to ensure waste is

managed to minimise the generation of odours. The odour management strategies that will be implemented through the Odour Management Plan

will include:

- A description of the odour control system and its components and an Odour Control System Operation Protocol, detailing the activities required to

maintain and operate the odour control system.

- Routine maintenance and cleaning of containers will not be permitted on the Banksmeadow TT site.

- Waste delivery trucks entering the terminal will be required to be fully enclosed or covered.

- Putrescible and non-putrescible waste stream will be kept separate.

- The floor area of the transfer terminal will be cleaned daily.

- The amount of putrescible waste left on-site within the terminal will be minimised.

- An odour complaint logbook will be maintained on-site. When odour complaints are received, a Site investigation will be conducted to identify any

unusual odour sources within the Site boundary and appropriate action taken as required.

- Odour monitoring and reporting will be undertaken in accordance with the EPL requirements for the facility.

A Dust Management Plan will be developed as part of the OEMP will document strategies to minimise potential dust emissions from the

Proposal's operations. Both preventative and responsive control measures will be identified in the plan, including:

- All trucks entering and leaving the premises carrying loads must be covered at all times, except during loading and unloading.

- Good dust management procedures will be implemented within the terminal building including regular sweeping and washing down, as required.

- Good dust management procedures outside of the Terminal building, and the general Site including regular sweeping to remove dust and other

debris.

- Training of all staff and personnel accessing the Site in the need to minimise dust generation.

- Use of a fine mist dust suppression system within the building, when there are particularly dust loads or noticeable dust levels, as required.

- Review of any complaints received relating to dust and reports from monitoring conducted as a result.

- Monthly toolbox meetings to discuss any safety and compliance issues, including dust, that have arisen since the previous meeting.

- Air quality and dust monitoring procedures will be outlined in the plan and monitored with respect to the NSW Government Regional Ambient Air

Quality and EPA criteria for allowable dust deposition.

- The components of the dust suppression system and the standard operational procedures for Site personnel to operate and maintain the system

will be documented within the DMP.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Noise and vibration Construction mitigation measures

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) will be developed as part of the CEMP and will address the following items at a

minimum:

- Prior to use of vibratory rollers on-site, vibration trials will be undertaken on-site to confirm that the use of vibratory rollers can comply with the

maximum level of 1.1 mm/s at the Goodman Industrial site and the Botany Building Recyclers. This testing will consider the recommendations of

Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DEC, 2006), and give due consideration to the vibration dose method described by the guideline.

Should trials indicate that maximum level for human comfort cannot be practicably achieved an acceptable limit will be negotiated with the affected

commercial sites and alternative compacting methods will be considered. During the pre-construction trials stockpiles at the Botany Building

Recyclers will be visually monitored to ensure construction activities do not compromise their stability.

- The CNVMP will include a requirement to inform neighbouring commercial and industrial receivers of the construction schedule and the timing of

any particularly noisy activities.

- Where practicable, construction activities will be staged to provide quiet, respite periods for commercial receivers.

- All construction activities will have regard to the standard hours of 07:00 am to 06:00 pm Monday to Friday, and 08:00 am to 01:00 pm Saturday

(with approval from relevant authorities). Any works undertaken outside of these hours will be undertaken in consultation with relevant authorities.

Works outside these hours that may be permitted will include:

-Any works which do not cause noise emissions to be audible at any nearby sensitive receptors.

- The delivery of materials which is required outside of these hours as requested by Police or other authorities for safety reasons. Local

residents, commercial and industrial premises will be informed of the timing and duration of approved works in accordance with the

notification provisions outlined in the CNMP.

- Emergency work to avoid the loss of lives, property and/or to prevent environmental harm.

- Any other work as approved through the CNMP Process.

- Training and awareness, which will include the following:

Site awareness training/environmental inductions to provide instruction on noise mitigation techniques/measures to be implemented during

construction of the SIMTA proposal.








N0001-AA005924-EIS-03



- Selection of quiet plant and processes wherever feasible and use of reversing alarms such as “smart alarms” and “squawker alarms”.

- Provision of temporary hoardings at the access points to the Proposal site on Beauchamp Road and McPherson Street to mitigate noise impacts

during works in proximity to the access points.


Two operational noise management plans will be developed for terminal operations, being a Noise Management Plan – Terminal Operations (TNMP)

and a Noise Management Plan – Rail Operations (RNMP_. The TNMP will be developed to address noise management for the terminal including

waste delivery truck movements, mobile plant and fixed plant on-site, including the compaction units and the extraction fan. A Noise Management

Plan – Rail Operations (RNMP) will be developed to prescribe measures to minimise rail noise from the Proposal.

Hazards and risk Construction mitigation measures

Construction will be undertaken in accordance with the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act 2011.

Safe operational access and egress for emergency service personnel and workers will be provided at all times, and specified in the CEMP.

An asbestos management plan will be developed for the proposal containing a risk assessment undertaken in accordance with Model Code of

Practice – How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace (Safe Work Australia 2011).

Where the management plan recommends the removal of asbestos from Site all works will be undertaken in accordance with the Model Code of

Practice – How to Safely Remove Asbestos (Safe Work Australia 2011), including the development of an asbestos removal control plan and an

emergency plan. An industrial hygienist will be involved in the development of this plan.

Veolia will engage a contractor who is appropriately qualified and competent to ensure appropriate management of asbestos as outlined in the

Model Code of Practice – Storage and handling of Dangerous Goods (Safe Work Australia 2005).

The WorkCover Authority of NSW (WorkCover) will be notified in writing five days before any licensed asbestos removal work is commenced. The

notification will be lodged by the licensed asbestos removalist. The Site will be classified as friable or non-friable by a suitably qualified

occupational hygienist prior to the notification being prepared.

The CEMP will include an Incident Response Plan that will include a Spill Management Procedure.


Hazards associated with construction of the Banksmeadow TT will be managed through the Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), which will be

undertaken as part of the detailed design.

Appropriate fire alarms and fire fighting equipment will be provided on-site for an initial emergency response and will include a deluge system, fire

extinguishers, hoses and reels. It will be ensured that utility services are adequate to meet the needs of fire fighters.

A fire hydrant system and/or foam from portable units, as well as a manually operated fire deluge system, will be provided for mitigating fires on



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


the tipping floor.

A designated area will be identified within the putrescible and non-putrescible areas of the terminal building for the management of ‘hot loads’ and

fire. These will be contained through a combination of dousing with fire hoses and discharging the contents and totally extinguishing the fire using

on-site fire hose reels. The fire water will be captured within the building bunding and leachate tank.

A PIRMP will be prepared for the facility to meet the requirements of the POEO Act and POEO (General) Regulations.

An Incident Response Plan (IRP) will be developed in accordance with AS 3745 - 2010 Planning for emergencies in facilities. An Emergency

Response Plan will form an appendix to the IRP

Greenhouse gas emissions Construction mitigation measures

All trucks leaving the site carrying waste will be filled to the maximum amount allowable, depending on the truck size, to reduce the number of

traffic movements required

The contractor will limit idling time of plant and equipment whilst on-site

The contractor will make certain that the only lighting left on overnight around the Site office will be security or emergency/access lighting

Earthmoving equipment and on-site vehicles will be fitted with exhaust controls in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations

(Clean Air) Regulation 2010.


Veolia commits to adopting energy saving measures to minimise GHG emissions; including:

- Assessing the feasibility of efficient electricity devices such as variable speed drives and installation of energy efficient lighting.

- B20 biodiesel will be used for diesel powered machinery on-site

Land use Detailed design of the Site Access will provide access for future land use development proposals on the Asciano land, to the immediate north of

the Banksmeadow TT site.

Biodiversity Construction mitigation measures

A CEMP will be prepared for the construction phase of the Proposal which will prescribe the following measures to be implemented to minimise

impacts on biodiversity:

- Weed management will be undertaken during the Site preparation works to minimise weed establishment and invasions, and will include the

following:

- Management of weed species on-site will be in accordance with the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

- Equipment used for treating weed infestation will be cleaned prior to moving to a new area within the Proposal site to minimise the likelihood of

transferring any plant material and soil.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


- Soil stripped and stockpiled from areas containing known weed infestations are to be stored separately and are not to be moved to areas free of

weeds.

- Clearance of native vegetation will be minimised as far as practicable.

- The extent of vegetation clearing will be clearly identified on construction plans.

- A pre-start up check for sheltering native fauna will be undertaken of all infrastructure, plant and equipment.

- If any pits/trenches are to remain open overnight, they will be securely covered, if possible. Alternatively, fauna ramps (logs or wooden planks) are

to be installed to provide an escape for trapped fauna.

- Should lighting be required during the construction phase, directional lighting will be used.

- Construction machinery and plant will be maintained regularly to minimise unnecessary noise.

- Dust suppression will be undertaken on-site as appropriate.


A Landscape Plan will be developed during detailed design, in accordance with the Draft Botany Bay DCP and the draft Landscape Technical

Guidelines for Development Sites (2013) where appropriate. Plant species to be used in landscaping will be predominantly native, with locally

indigenous species incorporated where practical and suitable.

The landscaped zone on the western boundary bordering the Botany Building Recyclers will be designed to capture gross pollutants and oil and

grits from pavement. This area will be regularly maintained to remove rubbish and can be renewed on a regular basis.

Detailed design of the terminal building and associated waste handling facilities will incorporate reasonable measures to minimise the potential for

birds, rodents, flies and other pests to gather at the Banksmeadow TT site, including provision for bird deterrent measures.

Weed and pest infestations identified during the operation of the proposal will be managed in accordance with a Vermin and Pest Control Plan,

which will form part of the OEMP.

Indigenous heritage Construction mitigation measures

The procedure for the management of unexpected archaeological finds will be documented within the CEMP for the Proposal and will include:

- If an item of Aboriginal significance or suspected significance is discovered during construction, all work in the vicinity of the area will cease and

the Environmental Representative for construction of the Proposal will be contacted as soon as possible to determine the subsequent course of

action.

- In the event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works will cease and the NSW Police and the NSW Coroner’s office will be

contacted. If the burial is identified as being of Aboriginal origin a heritage professional and NSW OEH will be contacted to determine the

subsequent course of action.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Non-indigenous heritage Construction mitigation measures

Procedures for the management of unexpected finds of items of potential heritage significance will be included within the CEMP for the Proposal,

and will include:

- Should an item of non-Indigenous significance, or suspected significance, be discovered during construction, all work in the vicinity of the area will

cease and the Proposal Environmental Representative will be contacted as soon as possible to determine the subsequent course of action.

- In the event that suspected human skeletal remains are discovered, all works will cease and the NSW Police and the NSW Coroner’s office will be

contacted.

Socio economic Construction mitigation measures

A Community Engagement Strategy will be developed to ensure that community engagement is maintained throughout the construction period,

including:

Continuing communication pathways, including a dedicated, 1800 phone line, email address and section on Veolia’s website, to provide

information regarding the proposal.

Maintaining communication with key government and community stakeholder, through the provision of letters and information sheets.

Ensuring landholders, within proximity of the Site, are kept well informed about the proposal, the construction hours and duration of the works.

Landholders will be provided relevant contact details to address queries relating to the works.


Parking, toilet facilities and vending machines for food will be provided on the Site for truck drivers to use.

An OEMP will be developed for the operational phase of the Proposal and will include procedures and measures to ensure that the community is

kept informed of the Proposal in a pro-active and responsive manner. The OEMP will contain provisions for the following:

- A Complaints Handling Procedure and maintenance of a Complaints Register.

- Operation of a 24 hour telephone line.

- Publication of contact details for the Banksmeadow TT on the Veolia website.

Visual amenity Construction mitigation measures

All works equipment and materials will be contained within designated boundaries of the work site.

The spread of stockpiles, waste, and vehicle parking will be minimised during construction.

The construction site will be left tidy at the end of each day.

Dust and dirt will be regularly cleaned from the road surface.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03


Operational mitigation measure

Highly reflective building surfaces, bright coloured surfaces and unpainted metal or materials will be avoided for the transfer terminal building and

offices.

Where possible, exterior light fittings will be installed in such a way that directs the light downwards and minimises impacts on adjacent land users.

The transfer terminal building will be covered with light coloured Colourbond cladding to reduce its prominence in upwards views against the sky.

The Colourbond cladding will be alternated with transclusent panels to reduce the building bulk. Veolia has selected a pale eucalypt colour for the

shed, however is willing to receive proposals from the community regarding the appearance of the terminal building.

The cladding of the building will be robust and graffiti resistant. Additionally, the Site will be fenced to prevent unauthorised entry of the site by

vandals.

The office building would be brick veneer, matching the existing office buildings on site.

In accordance with the Botany Bay DCP (2013) Part 3L (Landscaping) and Part 10 (Landscape Technical Guidelines for Development Sites) and

a detailed (construction level) landscape documentation, Site analysis and schedule of finishes will be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape

architect.

Lighting design for the Proposal site will be such that the criteria prescribed in Table 2.1 of Australian Standard - AS 4282-1997, “Control of

Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting” for commercial areas will be achieved at the Site boundary.

The maximum reflectivity of any glazing on street frontages will not exceed 20 per cent to avoid nuisance in the form of glare to occupants of

nearby buildings, pedestrians and motorists.

Appropriate directional signage will be provided at the Site entrances to direct vehicles and pedestrians safely around the Site. Signage for the

Proposal will be designed to relate, in size and form, to the scale of the transfer terminal, visibility and other advertisements within the vicinity,

including the Goodman’s Industrial Park and Botany Industrial Park on Beauchamp Road. Signage will be designed such that there will be no

lighting overspill from the signs.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

11 JUSTIFICATION AND CONCLUSION

11.1 JUSTIFICATION

The proposal would have the following benefits:

The Banksmeadow TT would allow local governments and commercial and industrial

(C&I ) operators to choose to send their residual waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site,

which incorporates the following key facilities:

The Woodlawn Bioreactor – an engineered landfill with strict environmental

protection measures, landfill gas capture and electricity generation, and winner of

the Waste Management Association of Australia’s National Landfill Excellence

Award (2007).

The Woodlawn MBT facility (currently approved) which will recover metals and

organics from incoming waste. Recovered organic material from the MBT is

planned to be used to rehabilitate areas severely degraded due to previous mining

activities at this site.

Access to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site would assist local governments and businesses

to reach the NSW Government’s landfill diversion targets for municipal and C&I waste,

and help to conserve putrescible landfill airspace in the immediate Sydney region.

The Banksmeadow TT would facilitate the recovery of recyclable materials from non-

putrescible waste through transferring the waste material to materials recovery facilities,

such as the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre. This would assist in the achievement of

the NSW Government’s landfill diversion targets for the C&I sector, conserve landfill

space, and return valuable materials to the productive economy.

As the existing putrescible waste landfills in the Sydney area are owned by one company,

the proposal would create choice and competition for waste management services.

The use of rail to transport waste to the Woodlawn Eco-Project site would remove the

equivalent of 30,000 heavy vehicle movements per year from Sydney’s road network.

The Proposal has been assessed to provide a benefit in the form of greenhouse gas

emission reduction associated with the decomposition of waste of 87,984 t CO2-e per

400,000 t of waste received.

An environmental impact assessment of the proposed Banksmeadow TT has been undertaken

and is presented within this EIS. Veolia is seeking to develop the Banksmeadow TT to provide

sustainable waste management services for a number of local Councils in Sydney’s South, and

to create choice and competition within Sydney for the management of residual waste. The

Proposal would provide for the transfer of putrescible waste by rail to the Woodlawn Eco-Project

site, and for the transfer of non-putrescible waste to the proposed Camellia Recycling Centre;

this will allow for greater resource recovery from waste generated within the Sydney Region.

The Proposal has been shown to be consistent with the relevant local and State government

planning instruments and waste management strategies. No significant environmental impacts

have been identified during the preparation of the EIS. The environmental impacts identified are

considered to be able to be mitigated through the implementation of the measures for

construction and operation of the Banksmeadow TT.

Construction of the Proposal would result in relatively minor short-term impacts to the local

environment. These temporary impacts would generally be confined to the Site and immediate

surrounds, including the Goodman Industrial Park and Botany Building Recyclers, where worst

case construction noise and vibration levels may exceed the Interim Construction Noise



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Guideline levels. However, through the erection of temporary hoardings and implementation of a

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan, it is predicted that noise level

exceedances at these receivers would not occur. Further investigations into potential vibratory

impacts during earthworks would be undertaken prior to commencement of construction, and

appropriate mitigation strategies adopted.

A range of measures are proposed to mitigate these potential environmental impacts. A CEMP

including the mitigation measures proposed in this EIS would be prepared during the detailed

design phase of the Proposal. Assuming the CEMP is successfully implemented, no significant

environmental impacts during the construction phase are predicted.

In addition, Veolia has a fully integrated, externally certified and audited Health Safety

Environment and Quality Management System. The implementation of Veolia’s well defined

operating procedures and maintenance routines would minimise the potential for incidents

occurring during operation, and will be applied to the operating conditions for the Proposal.

An Operational Management Plan (OEMP) would be developed for the Site, in accordance with

Veolia’s management system and the mitigation measures as outlined in this EIS. The OEMP

would follow procedures that have been developed for the Clyde Transfer Terminal, which has

been successfully implemented to minimise environmental impacts associated with the facility

since 2004. Assuming this is successfully implemented, no significant environmental impacts

during operation are predicted.

11.2 CONCLUSION

The Proposal, identified as State Significant Development, has been subject to an

Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 and the Director General’s Requirements. The potential environmental,

social and economic impacts, both direct and cumulative, have been identified and thoroughly

assessed as part of this EIS. The assessment concluded that no significant environmental

impacts have been identified as a result of the Proposal. It is considered that any potential

impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated through a range of measures that have been identified

within the EIS. In addition, the Proposal has been assessed against – and has been found to be

consistent with - the priorities and targets adopted in relevant published and draft State plans,

as well as Government policies and strategies.

The Proposal will provide significant benefit in terms of providing sustainable waste

management services for a number of local Councils in Sydney’s south, and by creating choice

and competition within Sydney for the management of residual waste. Overall the EIS

concludes that the development proposed is in the public interest and approval is

recommended.



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

12 REFERENCES

AECOM Pty Ltd (2012), Section 75W Modification Request – Qenos Alkatuff Plant Hydrogen

Trailer Unloading Bay, AECOM Pty Ltd

Artefact Heritage (2013), Boral Bringelly Brickworks Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment.

Report to Hyder Consulting

Atkinson, A (1988), Camden Farm and village life in early New South Wales, Oxford University

Press: Melbourne

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2012) Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas,

accessed February 2014, http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013a), Community Profile: City of Botany Bay,

Commonwealth of Australia, accessed June 2013

<http://profile.id.com.au/ssroc/about?BMID=20&WebID=140

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013b), Community Profile: Randwick, Commonwealth of

Australia, accessed June 2013 <http://profile.id.com.au/ssroc/about?BMID=20&WebID=210

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013c), Emissions from Waste, Australian Bureau of

Statistics, accessed October 2013

<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Wast

e%20(6.6)>

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012a), Census of Population and Housing: Basic

Community Profile (Banksmeadow), Commonwealth of Australia, accessed June 2013

<http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile

/SSC10101>

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012b), Census of Population and Housing: Basic

Community Profile (Matraville), Commonwealth of Australia, accessed June 2013


/SSC11491?opendocument&navpos=230>

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012c), Census of Population and Housing: Basic

Community Profile (Hillsdale), Commonwealth of Australia, accessed June 2013


/SSC11112>

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2008), 2006 Census Quickstats: Banksmeadow (State

Suburb), Commonwealth of Australia, accessed June 2013

<http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSearch?&areacode=SSC11

051&producttype=QuickStats&action=401>

Australian Rail and Track Corporation (2013), accessed October 2013

<http://www.artc.com.au/Content.aspx?p=14 >

AUSTROADS (2009), Guide to Road Design, Part 3 – Geometric Design

AUSTROADS n.d, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Part 2: Roadway Capacity

Barton, H (1996), Camden Bush Corridor Management Plan, Archaeological Study, Report

prepared by Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management, Prepared for EDAW

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Benson, D. and Howell, J (1990), Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs,

Sydney, Kangaroo Press (in assoc) with the Royal Botanic Garden

Botany Bay City Council (2013a), Springvale Drain and Floodvale Drain Flood Study Draft

Report, Sydney

Botany Bay City Council (2013b), Stormwater Management Technical Guidelines Development

Control Plan, Sydney

BMT WBM Pty Ltd (2013), Springvale Drain and Floodvale Drain Flood Study, Prepared by City

of Botany Bay Council

Cardno (2012), Port Botany Post Construction Environmental Monitoring: Water Quality

Monitoring Summary Report, Prepared for Sydney Ports Corporation

Chapman, G.A and Murphy, C.L. (1989), Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100 000 SHEET,

Soil Conservation Service of N.S.W., Sydney

City of Botany Bay (2013), Community Services, accessed June 2013

<http://www.botanybay.nsw.gov.au/index.php/council-services/services/community-services>

City of Sydney (2012), Decentralised Water Master Plan 2012-2030, accessed July 2013

<http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/122873/Final-Decentralised-

Water-Master-Plan.pdf>

Department of Climate Change & Water (2009), The Native Vegetation of the Sydney

Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area, NSW Government

Department of Environment & Climate Change NSW (2008), Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils

and Construction, Volume 2A Installation of Services, Department of Environment & Climate

Change NSW

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (2006), Assessing Vibration: A Technical

Guideline, NSW Government

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (2005), Approved Methods for Modelling

and Assessment of Air Pollutants In New South Wales, NSW Government

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (2005a), Green and Golden Bell Frog

Litoria aurea (Lesson 1829) Recovery Plan (draft), NSW Government

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2011a), Reducing Waste:

Implementation Strategy 2011-2015, Office of Environment and Heritage, accessed July 2013

<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/110147implementstrat2011-15.pdf>

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2011b), Waste Avoidance and

Resource Recovery Progress Report 2010, State Government of New South Wales, accessed

July 2013 <http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/110061WARRSPRvolume2.pdf>

Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water [now OEH] (2010a), Code of Practice for

Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2010b), Review of Waste

Strategy and Policy in New South Wales, Office of Environment and Heritage, accessed July

2013 <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/101034RevWasteStrat.pdf>

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2009), The Native Vegetation of the

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area, Department of Environment,

Climate Change and Water NSW, Hurstville



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (2009), Waste Classification

Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

NSW, accessed August 2013

<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/09281classifywaste.pdf>

Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science Research and Tertiary Education

(DIICSRTE) (2013a), National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) System

Measurement, Technical Guidelines for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions by

facilities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science Research and Tertiary Education

(DIICSRTE) (2013b), National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors, Commonwealth of

Australia, Canberra

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2004), Guideline for the

Preparation of Environmental Management Plans, NSW Government

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (2005), Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Assessment and Community Consultation

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (P&I) (2011), Hazardous and Offensive Development

Application Guidelines: Applying SEPP 33

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC)

(2013), Litoria aurea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, accessed August 2013

<http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat>

Douglas Partners (2013), Preliminary Report on Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Waste

Transfer Terminal 14 Beauchamp Road, Banksmeadow, Prepared for Pacific National (NSW)

Pty Ltd

Douglas Partners (2012), Report on Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Waste Transfer

Terminal 34-36 McPherson Street, Prepared for Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty

Ltd

Environment Protection Agency (2011), Road Noise Policy, NSW Government

Environment Protection Agency (2000), NSW Industrial Noise Policy, NSW Government

Environment Protection Agency (2007), Interim Guideline for the Assessment of Noise from Rail

Infrastructure Projects, NSW Government

Environment Protection Agency (2009), Interim Construction Noise Guideline, NSW

Government

Hibbs & Associates (2002), Asbestos Survey and Risk Assessment 36 McPherson Street

Banksmeadow NSW 2036, Prepared for Keith Engineering Pty Ltd

Hyder Consulting (2012), Waste and Recycling in Australia 2011, Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities, accessed July 2013

<http://www.environment.gov.au/wastepolicy/publications/pubs/waste-recycling2011.pdf>

Infrastructure NSW (2012), Port Botany–Sydney Airport Precinct, webpage of Infrastructure

NSW, accessed July 2013 <http://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/projects/port-botany-

%E2%80%93-sydney-airport-precinct.aspx>



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (2013), Welcome to Our County, accessed

November 2013 <http://laperouse.org.au/>

Landcom (2004), Soil and Construction: Managing Urban Stormwater, Volume 1, State

Government of New South Wales

Lawson & Treloar (2003), "Proposed Expansion of Container Port Facilities Botany Bay, NSW,

Coastal Process and Water Resources Issues, Volume 1: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies,"

Prepared for Sydney Ports Corporation

Maunsell Pty Ltd (2002), Traffic and Landside Transport Study for Proposed Port Botany

Expansion, Maunsell Pty Ltd

National Native Title Tribunal (2013), Geographic Extent of Claimant Applications and

Determinations of Native Title, Commonwealth of Australia, accessed August 2013

<http://www.nntt.gov.au/Mediation-and-agreement-making-

services/Documents/Quarterly%20Maps/Schedule_and_Determinations_map.pdf>

New South Wales Bionet (2013), NSW Bionet: The Website for the Atlas of NSW Wildlife, NSW

Government, Environment & Heritage, accessed August 2013 <http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/>

New South Wales Natural Resource Atlas (2013), accessed August 2013

<http://www.nratlas.nsw.gov.au/wmc/custom/homepage/home.html>

NSW Department of Planning (2007), Eastern Region: Draft Sub-regional Strategy, State

Government of New South Wales, accessed August 2013

<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/StrategicPlanning/subregions/SRS_EAST_LOWRE

S_WEB_INTRODUCTION.pdf>

NSW Department of Planning (2008), Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads –

Interim Guideline, State Government of New South Wales, accessed August 2013

<http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/rdaguidelines/documents/DevelopmentNearBusyRoadsandRa

ilCorridors.pdf>

NSW Department of Planning (2010), Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, State Government of

New South Wales, accessed August 2013

<http://strategies.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/METRO2036_COMPLETE.pdf>

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (2012), MAJOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT:

MP 06_0191 ORICA Southlands Remediation & Warehouse Development Project,

Banksmeadow, NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, accessed August 2013

<http://www.oricabotanytransformation.com/files/SouthlandsDirector-

General%E2%80%99s%20Environmental%20Appraisal%20Report.pdf>

NSW Government (2013), Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, Department of Premier and

Cabinet, accessed August 2013

<http://strategies.planning.nsw.gov.au/MetropolitanStrategyforSydney/Aboutthestrategy.aspx>

NSW Government (2012), Eastern Sydney and Inner West: Regional Action Plan, Department

of Premier and Cabinet, accessed August 2013

<http://www.2021.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdf/DPC13916-NSW-RAP-

ESyd%26IW2012_web.pdf>

NSW Office of Water (2010), 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan, Department of Environment,

Climate Change and water, 2010, accessed July 2013

<http://www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-

documents/2010_Metropolitan_Water_Plan.pdf>



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

NSW Office of Water (2013), Botany Sand Beds Aquifer, NSW Department of Primary

Industries, Office of Water, accessed October 2013 <http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-

management/Water-quality/Groundwater/Botany-Sand-Beds-aquifer/Botany-Sands-

Aquifer/default.aspx>

NSW Ports (2013), TRADE STATISTICS BULLETIN - 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013, NSW Ports,

accessed July 2013 <http://www.nswportsbotany.com.au/assets/Uploads/public-

downloads/Trade-Stats---April-2013-to-Dec-2013/Port-Botany-June-2013-Trade-Stats-

Bulletin.pdf>

NSW Ports (2013), Port Botany expansion, NSW Ports, accessed July 2013

<http://www.nswportsbotany.com.au/projects/port-botany-expansion/>

Office of Environment (2013), Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS),

accessed June 2013

<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/AboriginalHeritageInformationManagementSyste

m.htm>

Office of Environment and Heritage n.d ‘Main Administration Building’, NSW State Heritage

Inventory, Online edition, Accessed January 2014:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=1210022

Office of Environment and Heritage (2014) Green and Golden Bell Frog – profile, accessed

January 2014

<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10483>

Orica (2013), Southlands Development Project Community Fact Sheet, Orica, accessed June

2013 www.orica.com/.../298/20120911_Southlands_fact-sheet.pdf.aspx>

Roads and Maritime Services (2002), Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Version 2.2,

October 2002

Roads and Maritime Services (2013), SCATS vehicle counts for TCS 1532, 1548 and 1526

Roads and Maritime Services (2005), Online Traffic Volume Data, accessed July 2013

<http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/aadtdata_dl1.html>

Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust (RBGDT) n.d Indigenous People and Botany Bay,

Office of Environment and Heritage, accessed July 2013

<http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Evolutionary_Ecology_Research/Botany_of_Botany_Ba

y/people/indigenous_people>

Safe Work Australia (2011), Model Code of Practice - How to Safely Remove Asbestos

Sherpa Consulting (2012), Quantitative Risk Assessment Summary Report: Botany Industrial

Park, accessed: 5 February 2014,

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/Development/Compliance/BIP_QRA_Summary.pdf

Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (1996), Proposed Co-Generation Plant at McPherson Street,

Botany Flood Report, Prepared for ALISE

Sinclair Knight Consulting Engineers (1992), Catchment Management Study Floodvale &

Springvale Drains, Botany

Sinclair Knight Merz (2006), New Botany Paper Mill Project B9 Environmental Assessment

Report, AMCOR Packaging, accessed June 2013

<https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/a79bf09acb8d794b62c02db1597147d3/EA%20Mai

n%20Report.pdf>

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/Development/Compliance/BIP_QRA_Summary.pdf



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Southern Cross Airports Corporation Holdings Limited (2013), Sydney Airport - Key Highlights

2010, Sydney Airport Corporation, accessed June 2013

<http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/~/media/files/corporate/about%20us/annual%20re

port/2010/key%20highlights%2010.pdf>

Standards Australia (1997), Australian Standard. Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor

lighting, Standards Association of Australia, Homebush

State Pollution Control Commission (1983), Air Pollution from Coal Mining and Related

Developments, State Pollution Control Commission

Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (2013), Sydney Airport Master Plan, Sydney Airport

Corporation Limited, accessed July 2013

<http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/~/media/files/corporate/environment%20plan/mast

er%20plan/2033/master%20plan%20->%20executive%20summary.pdf>

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (2011), Botany Bay & Catchment Water

Quality Improvement Plan, Sydney: Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan

Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (2009), Interim Water Quality

Improvement Plan. Sydney: Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Program, Sydney

Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, accessed July 2013

<http://www.sydney.cma.nsw.gov.au/bbcci/publications/Discussion_Paper_for_BB_WQIP_Nov_

09.PDF>

Sydney Ports Corporation (2007), Port Botany Expansion Penrhyn Estuary Habitat

Enhancement Plan, accessed June 2013

<http://www.sydneyports.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/3610/PEHEP_Report_ExecSumm

ary.pdf>

Transport for NSW (2012a), Industry Reference Group Report: Waste, Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW (2012b), NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, Transport for NSW

Turbet, P (2010), The First Frontier: The Occupation of the Sydney Region: 1788 to 1816,

Rosenburg Press

United States Environment Protection Agency (1985), AP42 Chapter 11: Mineral Products

Industry – Western Surface Coal Mining, US EPA

URS Pty Ltd (2009), Southlands Remediation and Development Project: Environmental

Assessment. Appendix O: Green and Golden Bell Frog Survey and Seven Part Test Orica

Southlands Site Banksmeadow 2007 by Biosphere Environmental Consultants

URS Pty Ltd (2010), Environmental Assessment: Woodlawn Expansion Project. Volume 2 –

Main Report

Veolia Environmental Services (VES) (2013), Supporting Document for Banksmeadow Transfer

Terminal: 14 Beauchamp Rd, Banksmeadow

White A.W. and Pyke G.H (2008), Frogs on the hop: translocations of Green and Golden Bell

Frogs Litoria aurea in Greater Sydney, Australian Zoologist 34(3): 249-260

White, E. and McDonald (2010), Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area,

Cumberland Plain, New South Wales, Australian Archaeology 70:29–38

Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd (2013) Banksmeadow Trnasfer Terminal Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd (2014) Banksmeadow Transfer Terminal Air Quality Impact

Assessment

World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004),

Greenhouse Gas Protocol The Greenhouse Gas Protocol - A Corporate Accounting and

Reporting, Standard Revised Edition

Wright Corporate Strategy (2009), Public Review - Landfill Capacity and Demand, State

Government of New South Wales, accessed July 2013

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Xtm8jz6j7WI%3D&tabid=70&languag

e=en-AU

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Xtm8jz6j7WI%3D&tabid=70&language=en-AU

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Xtm8jz6j7WI%3D&tabid=70&language=en-AU



N0001-AA005924-EIS-03

APPENDIX A

DIRECTOR GENERAL'S REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

APPENDIX B

BANKSMEADOW TT PROPOSAL – SITE PLANS

APPENDIX C

QUANTITY SURVEYOR REPORT

APPENDIX D

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION - UPDATES

APPENDIX E

REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN, 34 - 36 MCPHERSON STREET (DOUGLAS PARTNERS 2013)

APPENDIX F

PHASE 2 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT, 14 BEAUCHAMP ROAD (DOUGLAS PARTNERS 2014)

APPENDIX G

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT (HYDER CONSULTING 2013)

APPENDIX H

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (HYDER CONSULTING 2013)

APPENDIX I

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX J

NON-CONFORMING WASTE FORM (EXAMPLE)

APPENDIX K

OPERATIONAL CONTINGECY PLAN (EXAMPLE)

APPENDIX L

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (WILKINSON MURRAY 2014)

APPENDIX M

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT (WILKINSON MURRAY 2013)

APPENDIX N

PRELIMINARY HAZARDS AND RISK ASSESSMENT (HYDER CONSULTING 2014)

APPENDIX O

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT (HYDER CONSULTING 2014)

APPENDIX P

OEH WILDLIFE ATLAS AND DOTE PROTECTED MATTERS SEARCH TOOL RESULTS

APPENDIX Q

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN

Date post:	10-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times