Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

A REPORT TO THE TASK FORCE ON HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY

Rev 3

19 December 2007

WV03265-EV-RP-0001 Rev 3

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

A REPORT TO THE TASK FORCE ON HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY

Rev 3

19 December 2007

WV03265-EV-RP-0001 Rev 3

Sinclair Knight Merz 7th Floor, Durack Centre 263 Adelaide Terrace PO Box H615 Perth WA 6001 Australia

Tel: +61 8 9268 4400 Fax: +61 8 9268 4488 Web: www.skmconsulting.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright. LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

The SKM logo is a trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. © Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, 2006

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 13 1.1 Background 13 1.2 Purpose and Structure of this Report 16 1.3 Study Limitations and Data Uncertainty 18

2. Regional Context (Operations and Environment Characteristics) 21 2.1 Port Hedland Port Operations 21 2.2 Environmental - Biophysical Characteristics 25 2.2.1 Landforms and Topography 25 2.2.2 Soils and Geology 25 2.2.3 Vegetation 26 2.2.4 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 26 2.2.5 Climate 29 2.3 Population and Land Use 31 2.3.1 Port Hedland Population Characteristics 31 2.3.2 Land-use and Tenure 31 2.4 Economic Characteristics – Industry and Business 31 2.4.1 Aquaculture and Fishing (Commercial and Recreational) 31 2.4.2 Pastoral Activities 32 2.4.3 Tourism 32 2.4.4 Mining and Commercial Activities 32 2.5 Associated Infrastructure and Support Services 33 2.5.1 Air Services 33 2.5.2 Road Network 33 2.5.3 Rail Network 34 2.5.4 Energy Supply 35 2.5.5 Water Supply 35 2.5.6 Waste Management 35 2.5.7 Waste Water 36

3. Cumulative Impact Assessment Approach and Methodology 37 3.1 Current Port Operations 37 3.2 Future Port Operations 37 3.3 Cumulative Impacts of Interest 38 3.3.1 Air quality 38 3.3.2 Noise (industrial and transport) 38 3.4 Identifying emission sources for key impacts 39 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE i Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

3.5 Quantifying emission sources 39 3.6 Scenario Development 46 3.7 Modelling and Assessment of the Scenarios 46 3.7.1 Selection of criteria for comparison 47 3.7.2 Modelling and assessment approach for air quality 48 3.7.3 Modelling and assessment approach for noise 48

4. Development Scenarios 51 4.1 Criteria for selecting scenarios 51 4.2 Timeframe 52 4.3 2004 to 2005 - Base case scenario (Bench-mark year) 53 4.4 2010 - Short-term future scenario 56 4.5 2015 to 2020 - Long-term (mid-future) scenario 57

5. Modelling Results and Assessment 61 5.1 Air Quality – Dust 61

5.1.1 Predicted Maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations 63 5.1.2 Predicted Maximum 24 hour TSP concentrations 67 5.1.3 Estimated Metal Constituent of Dust 69 5.2 Air Quality – Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur 71 5.3 Noise 71 5.3.1 Traffic Noise in Port Hedland 72 5.3.2 Industrial Noise and Port Hedland 74 5.3.3 Traffic Noise and Wedgefield 77 5.3.4 Industrial Noise and Wedgefield 80 5.3.5 Aircraft Noise (including heliport activity) 83 5.4 Recognised Constraints Arising from the Modelling 84

6. Land Use Planning and Future Impact Management 85 6.1 Current land use controls 85 6.1.1 Town Planning Scheme 85 6.1.2 Land Use Master Plan 86 6.1.3 Enquiry by Design 86 6.1.4 State Planning Policies 87 6.1.5 Other guidelines 88 6.1.6 State Agreements 88 6.2 Planning Challenges 89

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 93 7.1 Air Quality 93 7.2 Noise 96

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE ii I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

7.3 Risk 97 7.4 Light 97

8. Acknowledgements 101

9. References 103

10. Abbreviations and Acronyms 107

Appendix A Air Quality 109 A.1 Air Quality (Dust) Modelling and Assessment Report 111 A.2 Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Sources) Report 113 A.3 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth Report 115

Appendix B Preliminary Light Assessment 117

Appendix C Noise Modelling and Assessment Report 119

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Port Hedland Location 19 Figure 1-2 Port Hedland Studies 20 Figure 2-1 Physical characteristics 27

Figure 2-2 Daily Average PM10 Concentrations (April 1996–February 2006) (BHPBIO 2006) 30 Figure 4-1 Infrastructure footprint – Base Case 2004-2005 55 Figure 4-2 Infrastructure footprint – Scenario 2010 (estimated at 1 March 2007) 59 Figure 4-3 Infrastructure footprint – Scenario 2015-2020 (estimated at 1 March 2007) 60 Figure 5-1 Locations for model interpretation 62

Figure 5-2 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Harbour air quality monitoring site 64

Figure 5-3 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Hospital air quality monitoring site 65

Figure 5-4 Base Case – Modelled maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 65

Figure 5-5 2010– Predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 66

Figure 5-6 2015-2020 Scenario – Predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 66 Figure 5-7 Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Harbour air quality monitoring site 68 Figure 5-8 Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Hospital air quality monitoring site 68

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page iii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-9 Traffic Noise – Base Case (2004-2005) 72 Figure 5-10 Traffic Noise - Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2010 73 Figure 5-11 Traffic Noise - Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2015-2020 74 Figure 5-12 Industrial Noise Base Case Scenario 75 Figure 5-13 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario 76 Figure 5-14 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario 77 Figure 5-15 Traffic Noise Base Case Scenario (Wedgefield) 78 Figure 5-16 Traffic Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario (Wedgefield) 79 Figure 5-17 Traffic Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario (Wedgefield) 80 Figure 5-18 Industrial Noise Base Case Scenario (Wedgefield) 81 Figure 5-19 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario (Wedgefield) 82 Figure 5-20 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario (Wedgefield) 83

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Existing operations of interest 23

Table 3-1 Scoping Matrix - Existing operations in Port Hedland and potential impacts of interest * 41

Table 5-1 – Sensitive receptor locations for model interpretation 61

Table 5-2 Criteria for Comparison - Dust 63

Table 5-3 Comparison of predicted PM10 concentrations in Port Hedland 63

Table 5-4 Comparison of predicted TSP concentrations in Port Hedland 67

Table 5-5 Ambient air quality guideline criteria for heavy metals 70

Table 6-1 Land-use zones and total areas (hectares) 86

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE iv I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type Draft A 12/06/2007 Subject to Review 12/06/2007 Preliminary Draft – Commercial In-Confidence 0 12/06/2007 J Harper D Tuxford Executive Summary 1 07/09/2007 S Wallis D Tuxford 06/09/2007 Final Draft 2 25/09/2007 J Harper D Tuxford 26/09/2007 Client Comments 3 19/09/2007 B Brown D Tuxford 19/09/2007 Noise Review

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to Draft A Electronic 1 Client (Ross Atkin, DOIR) 0 Electronic 1 Client (Ross Atkin, DOIR) 1 Electronic 1 Client (Ross Atkin, DOIR) 2 Electronic 1 Client (Ross Atkin, DOIR) 2 Electronic 1 Client (Sally Walker, DOIR) 3 Electronic and Hard Copies 1 & 30 Client (Ross Atkin, DOIR) & Taskforce

Printed: 30 July 2008 Last saved: 30 July 2008 01:49 PM

File name: I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\R3 PHCIA Final.doc

Author: Shreya Shah/Deanna Tuxford

Project manager: Deanna Tuxford/Shreya Shah

Name of organisation: Department of Industry and Resources

Name of project: Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

Name of document: Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

Document version: Final Draft – For Stakeholder Consultation

Project number: WV03265

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE v Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

This page has intentionally been left blank

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE vi I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Executive Summary

Background The Port Hedland port is mainly a large volume bulk minerals export port moving iron ore, salt, manganese, chrome and copper concentrates. Other commodities are exported and imported through the port, including cattle, fuel and chemicals. Seven berths are situated within the inner harbour, with three available for general use (bulk commodity import and export) and a further four operated by BHP Billiton Iron Ore (BHPBIO) for iron ore exports. The port is currently the largest port by tonnage in Australia. During 2002-2003, the Port Hedland Port Authority commissioned a study to investigate expansion opportunities for the port. Ongoing expansion of the port is expected with projects by Fortescue Metal Group Limited (FMG) under construction at Anderson Point (new berths, loading facilities and rail infrastructure), additional public berths and stockyard facilities under consideration at Utah Point and significant expansion projects proposed by BHPBIO (BHPBIO 2006).

The close proximity of residential areas to the port means that possible future expansions are not without concern, to both the community and industry. Potential environmental and community impacts from shipping movements, road transport, stockpiles, ore trains and other such port activities are noted as issues of concern for the community (ToPH 2006).

In response to this concern, and on behalf of the Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability, the Department of Industry and Resources (DOIR) has commissioned this desk study. The focus of the study is on the likely changes in key impacts arising from changes and growth in port operations, and identifying the subsequent potential impact on the local community of Port Hedland. The key cumulative impacts investigated are those related to air quality (dust) and noise.

It is important that the findings of this study be considered in conjunction with a number of other studies and reports that are either currently underway or due for release in the coming months, in particular the revision of the Port Hedland Port Authority’s Ultimate Development Plan, the Department of Health’s three-stage study, the Port Hedland Master Plan, as well as individual proposals being considered through the environmental impact assessment process.

Scenario Development This study investigates two potential development scenarios considered to be a likely representation of future port operations, both in terms of design, scale and timing. The 2004-2005 financial year has been selected as the base case for the modelling assessment. Air quality and noise data sets, as well as port operations records are available for comparison to the future scenarios. The future scenarios in summary are:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 1 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

short term development to 2010 that accounts for the known expansion of BHPBIO (RGP4), the proposed Port Hedland Port Authority Utah Point development and FMG’s Anderson Point project; and

longer term development from 2015 to 2020 that accounts for further BHPBIO expansion (RGP5), the continued operation of Utah Point, the expansion of FMG’s Anderson Point operations, and the introduction of Hope Down operations.

For the assessment, forecasted growth data and proposed developments known or confirmed as of the 1 March 2007 were used. Revised forecasts and proposals announced after this date are not considered in this assessment.

It is noted that since the 1 March 2007 data cut-off date, various expansions within the port have been further proposed, altering the expected scale and timing of the port operations. The short term development scenario remains generally reflective of likely development in terms of scale, however the 2015-2020 scenario is expected to be an underestimate of the likely development in the longer term. For example, a recent announcement by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure estimates the port capacity itself to be 420Mtpa compared to the study estimate of 320Mtpa; and BHPBIO now has a growth target of 300Mtpa by 2015 compared to the study estimate of 165Mtpa for the 2015-2020 scenario.

The study examines the likely cumulative effect of a series of developments over time representing likely or realistic development at the port. The total tonnage capacity of the port is approximately 320 Mtpa, with the future scenario for 2015-2020 recognising operations that account for approximately 70% of the total capacity. Possible future development of vanadium and magnetite deposits and associated bulk exports through the port are not included as there is no definite proposal to date. Gas processing facilities have similarly been excluded.

The underlying premise of the assessment is that the individual developments considered in the scenarios may not create a significant impact, but collectively may contribute to an increase in the overall or cumulative impact on the community.

An initial screening exercise was undertaken to identify the key operations and facilities in the project area expected to contribute to impacts on air quality, odour, noise, light and risk. The screening exercise highlighted that the key impacts of importance or influence on the community were the potential impact arising from changes to air quality (principally dust), noise and public risk.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 2 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The screening exercise identified several odour sources within the project area, however emission estimations, in conjunction with the distance of separation between the sites and sensitive receptors, indicated that these sources were not so significant as to require separate or cumulative assessment. The need for a comprehensive light assessment was deemed not to be necessary in discussions with the client, given the nature and relative importance of the air and noise components of the study. The progression of the public risk component of the study was constrained by the limited publicly available information, and as agreed with the client is not reported.

Air Quality Assessment The air quality assessment focuses on modelling the potential change in dust emissions, both in the form of particles 10 micron in aerodynamic diameter and total suspended particulates up to 50 micron in aerodynamic diameter (PM10 and TSP respectively). Insufficient monitoring data was available at the time of the study to make an assessment of the potential change in dust emissions,

in the form of particles 2.5 micron in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). Similarly insufficient data was available to assess the chemical composition of the dust.

Maximum 24-hour PM10 and TSP modelling results were investigated at the Port Hedland “Harbour” and “Hospital” Dust Monitors along with three other nominated sensitive receptors in the study area, in the localities of Pretty Pool, Wedgefield and South Hedland. Maximum concentrations of dust were also compared to relevant ambient criteria. The chemical composition of the dust in Port Hedland and its potential impact on the environment and the community was outside the scope of this assessment but is an important issue to the study region, and is being considered as part of a phased study being undertaken by the Department of Health. An emission inventory of the main mobile emission sources was completed to gain an understanding of the potential change in diffuse emission sources in the study area. No local monitoring data was available for the verification of emission estimates for the mobile emission sources (heavy duty vehicles and shipping emission estimates). Preliminary screening level modelling was undertaken of the estimated shipping emissions to assess whether future developments would need to include consideration of this issue as part of an environmental impact assessment process.

Key findings from the air quality assessment are:

Dust

Base-case dust concentrations in Port Hedland are above the NEPM PM10 criteria and the TSP

assessment criteria set for this study. The applicability of the PM10 NEPM criteria to the Port Hedland region is currently being investigated by the Department of Health.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 3 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The maximum PM10 concentrations at the Harbour monitoring sites are predicted to increase for both the 2010 and 2015-2020 future development scenarios when compared to the base case scenario. The modelled maximum TSP concentrations at the Harbour monitoring site are predicted to decrease for the 2010 future development scenario, however this turns to a slight increase with the 2015-2020 future development scenario. The levels are not predicted to increase to the

2004-2005 concentrations but will remain above the NEPM PM10 criteria.

The maximum PM10 and TSP concentrations at the Hospital monitoring site are predicted to decrease for both the 2010 and 2015-2020 future development scenarios.

The Wedgefield modelled receptor location shows a relatively small increase in PM10 concentrations for the two future scenarios, but no change in the modelled TSP concentrations.

Modelled concentrations remain above the NEPM PM10 criteria.

Changes and improvements to BHPBIO’s operations detailed in their dust management program;

Ceasing the open bulk storage of manganese (Consolidated Minerals) in the vicinity of Berth 1 (Nelson Point); and

Relocating the ship-loading of open-stored manganese ore to the proposed public berths at Utah Point.

Mobile emission sources

Mobile emission sources, dominated by heavy duty vehicles (diesel) and ships, are predicted to increase substantially in future years. The emissions inventory for the main mobile emission sources (heavy duty vehicles (diesel), aircraft and ships) shows that the Port Hedland area is a significant contributor of emissions when compared to the broader Pilbara region, with the greatest contribution of emissions coming from ships.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 4 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Heavy-duty vehicles (diesel) Heavy-duty vehicles (diesel) are estimated to contribute the equivalent of 10% of oxides of

nitrogen emission when compared to the Pilbara region and over 20% of the PM10 emission. These vehicles are a relatively low contributing source to sulphur dioxide emissions possibly as a results of the fuel quality specifications in place in WA.

The contribution to PM10 emissions is also estimated to be relatively low, however this is considered to be an under-estimate as not all potential sources of particles were accounted for in the assessment. Heavy-duty vehicle emissions (road haulage) show a significant increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides in the future scenarios with the predicted emissions almost doubling every five

Odour

Activities associated with waste management handling, treatment and disposal were identified as the main odour sources within the project area. This includes odour complaints associated with waste management operations in Wedgefield.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 5 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The separation distance between the various odour-emitting sources in the project area was considered to be sufficient (an adequate distance apart) so as not to present a cumulative impact. No additional odour modelling was therefore undertaken.

Noise Assessment The noise assessment included separate consideration of industrial-based noise emissions, transport emissions and noise associated with aircraft. The predicted changes to noise levels have been compared to relevant criteria, and as a comparison to the base case scenario. Model predictions are presented as noise contour maps and noise change maps for both the Port Hedland and Wedgefield areas.

Key findings from the noise assessment are: Industrial sources

Based on a comparison of noise modelling of road transport and industrial sources, industrial activity is the dominant source of noise at the sensitive receptor locations in the Port Hedland town area. With nearby industrial plants operating 24 hours a day, noise levels at night are of most concern. Noise modelling indicates noise levels in the Port Hedland town area exceed the assigned noise levels, currently and for both future scenarios. Noise levels in areas in Port Hedland near to industrial activities are 10 – 18dB(A) higher than the assessment criteria. Noise levels due to industrial activities are predicted to increase in residential areas by up to 2dB by 2015–2020 scenario. Noise contour maps for the future scenarios show a progressive increase in the number of noise sources and the level of noise emissions. However, it is the existing local industry that will continue to dominate the local noise environment in the future in the Port Hedland town area. Increased levels of industrial noise are of some concern in Wedgefield for both future scenarios. Significant increases in noise levels are expected in Wedgefield from the future development and expansion of nearby industrial facilities and associated infrastructure.

Traffic sources

Traffic noise levels at residences immediately adjacent to Port Hedland Road are above the recommended noise guidelines. Individual truck pass-bys are expected to produce a short-term high noise level with the potential for sleep disturbance. Traffic noise is predicted to increase by up to 1dB in residential built-up areas by 2010 and by up to 3dB for the 2015-2020 scenario. The noise increase is primarily due to noise from increased truck movements on Finucane Road.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 6 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Traffic on the Great Northern Highway is predicted to be the dominant noise source in the Wedgefield area for all modelled scenarios. Noise modelling suggests the noise guidelines will be satisfied for all scenarios. Noise levels are predicted to increase by up to 4dB in Wedgefield by 2010 and by up to 6dB for the 2015–2020 scenario.

Aircraft sources

Depending on the type of aircraft in use in future, there may be minimal change in aircraft noise impact at the airport and under the landing/takeoff route.

Risk There are no major hazard facilities currently operating in the project area, and no confirmed proposals for facilities classified as such were identified for the 2010 and 2015-2020 timeframes.

There are 28 confirmed premises in the project area requiring Dangerous Goods Licences under the Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961. These premises vary and include chemical storage, waste incineration and fuel handling.

Adequate publicly available information to undertake an informed risk assessment was not accessible during the study. The progression of the public risk component of the study was constrained by this limitation, and as agreed with the client is not reported. The completion of a risk assessment involving direct access to all relevant sites as well as specific information of operations, layout and configuration, management plans and procedures, requires further consideration. Particular focus on Wedgefield is justified in the first instance given the mix of land uses within close proximity to premises licensed under the Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961.

Light Light overspill into some residential streets in Port Hedland is observed to come from the port operations, BHPBIO operations and light industrial/community facilities adjacent to residential streets.

Adequate information to evaluate the main lighting sources in Port Hedland in comparison to the Australian Standards was not available during the time of the study. Lighting and/or energy audits of operations and facilities in Port Hedland are recommended, especially in conjunction with future expansion or development plans.

Study limitations This assessment has been based on the consideration of three scenarios; a base case and two future scenarios that include only those proposals known or considered likely to proceed in future (as

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 7 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

determined at 1 March 2007). The tonnage throughput of exports from the port (that is the port’s capacity) was set accordingly and does not reflect the ultimate port capacity of current infrastructure (320 Mtpa), nor the recent announcement by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure estimating the port capacity itself to be 420Mtpa based on operational improvements.

A time limit on the proposal and data considered for input to the study was set for 1 March 2007. Subsequent variations to proposals (both existing operations and new) are not accounted for in this assessment. Variations to proposals that involve increased tonnages above what has been considered in the models are likely, and hence the modelling cannot be considered definitive or “worst-case”.

Confidentiality constraints linked to data availability and proposed plant configurations for some existing and yet to be approved developments has necessitated the reporting of results in a generic sense. The “sharing” of data and knowledge across companies would make the study results and scenarios more robust and would facilitate the ongoing assessment of future development or scenarios.

The cumulative models for air and noise provide a basis against which to consider future development and are indicative only. The relative change in these emissions when compared to the base-case scenario is a more reliable comparison than the comparison to the absolute emission estimates, due mainly to the assumptions incorporated into the models.

Insufficient information was publicly available during the time of the study to evaluate adequately the issues of public risk and light. Further investigation is necessary to assess and determine the current and potential future impacts.

The assessment of the potential impact from heavy metals contained in the dust was outside the scope of this study, but remains an important issue to the area and requires further investigation. Broader impacts or implications of changing and increasing traffic, such as road safety and traffic modelling, were beyond the scope of this study, but remain as important issues to be considered further.

Planning Challenges During the course of this study a number of issues were raised relating primarily to the strategic long-term planning for the Port Hedland area and the management of cumulative impacts arising from proposed development. Many of these were identified (and are continuing to be discussed and addressed) through the Land Use Master Plan process.

The way Port Hedland has grown and developed presents challenges in itself. Given the close proximity of the port operations to the historic west end of Port Hedland town and adjacent

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 8 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

residential areas, and the continuation of elevated levels of environmental noise and dust impact here, the area presents both planning and management challenges.

Strong community support is being expressed through the Land Use Master Plan process (LUMP) for this area to be “revitalised” into a vibrant town centre, attracting people to both recreate and live there. There is support from some for the development density to be increased here also.

Dust modelling indicates that the levels experienced in this part of the town will improve (in comparison to the base-case) however levels are predicted to remain above NEPM standards that have been set to protect against health impacts. Until the Department of Health’s study findings are known, a conservative approach is recommended to ensure that there is no further increase in the population present in this area for any extended period of time.

The existing road network within and around Port Hedland also presents challenges, in that the traffic route options in and out of Port Hedland are limited. Route sharing between non-industrial and industrial vehicles has always been the case in Port Hedland, however a significant increase in heavy haulage vehicles on these shared roads is predicted in future scenarios. Upgrades to the road network in and around Port Hedland have been recommended in other studies, and the predicted growth in traffic volume and changes to traffic mix are such that a review of the road network and an assessment of the current and future risks to the community and road users is considered necessary.

A large number of significant project proposals are being progressed in the Port Hedland region. These are expected to be subject to detailed environmental consideration for their proposed operations and development in the immediate future. The “footprint” of development and the capacity or extent of this development is rapidly changing. There is significant uncertainty as to whether the contextual setting within which projects are being assessed now is reflective of actual future development and the potential cumulative impact in the longer term.

The modelling completed for this study has also indicated that the changing “footprint” and growth in Port Hedland may give rise to additional environmental impacts that will require more detailed consideration through the environmental impact assessment process, and through further cumulative investigations. Increased emission estimates for oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide fall into this category. By association, with the increase in diesel emission sources in the future scenarios, the emission of particles PM2.5 should also be considered in future assessments.

The Port Hedland Port Authority Planning Study (2003) and the associated ultimate development plan provide a basis for understanding how the Port Authority would like to progress development of the port operations in future. It is understood that the plan is being revised in 2007. There is benefit to having this plan reviewed and strategically assessed for the potential environmental and

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 9 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

community cumulative impacts that may arise from such development including associated infrastructure such as new rail, roads and service corridors. A further consideration for the revision would be to provide an overview of options being considered to extend the capacity of the port beyond what has been considered in the cumulative scenarios.

Recommendations An agreed framework for future development of the Port Hedland area and the port is strongly recommended. Its focus needs to be on high level strategic planning with clear objectives for future land development across Port Hedland, as well as for the management and monitoring of cumulative environmental impacts arising from a combination of port operations and associated activities. The planning should be based on managing impacts from:

current growth and developments; forecast immediate and medium-term future growth and developments (beyond 2010); and sustained or a slowing down of the growth and development in the longer-term (beyond 2020).

This development framework needs to be supported by an environmental and community health policy for the Port Hedland area, that provides clarity on the acceptable environmental and health standards to be achieved in the area, both now and into future. This is particularly important given that both noise and dust levels are higher than this study’s assessment criteria, and that additional emission sources are planned in the future. It is also important for placing in context the likely cumulative impacts of interest in future, such as particles 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

(PM2.5), oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide, and the metal constituents of atmospheric and deposited dust. To be effective, this policy needs to have the support of the state government, industry and local community, and be progressed as a matter of priority.

Those operators in Port Hedland contributing to the key impacts of air quality and noise would benefit from adopting a co-operative approach to monitoring the cumulative impacts and managing these issues. Industry co-operation has developed in other regions, for example in the Kwinana region with the establishment of the Kwinana Industries Council facilitating the operation of an industry network of ambient air quality monitoring sites in that region. The number of companies operating in, and exporting through, Port Hedland, has increased in recent years. With further growth in operations projected, the timely establishment of an industry council may facilitate the interactions between companies, the government and the community. The exchange of relevant project and proposal details would also facilitate the future assessment of potential cumulative impacts with more certainty.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 10 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

While there have been many studies carried out on Port Hedland in recent years, this study has identified a number of important gaps in the existing knowledge base that warrant further consideration and investigation.

Further increases or changes to dust and noise emission sources in the region beyond those included in the 2015-2020 scenario will also require further consideration.

Impacts associated with construction activities were not assessed as part of this study. Similarly the potential contribution of construction impacts is generally not modelled at the individual project assessment stage. This has been on the basis that the impact is transient and of relatively short duration when compared to the duration of the operational impacts. However given the extent of future development likely to proceed in the project area in future and that these construction activities may occur for some years to come, there is justification for the potential impact of construction activities to be considered in future assessments, particularly in a cumulative framework.

Where possible, it is recommended that future operations give priority to moving freight by rail to minimise road traffic and associated impacts, or to separate heavy haulage traffic from commuter and other traffic.

Further investigation of the potential impact on the community from night-time noise associated with heavy haulage vehicles is recommended. Noise levels are such that sleep disturbance may occur from truck pass-bys. The extent to which road transport contributes to emissions of air pollutants, in particular dust levels and air toxics, is yet to be determined in Port Hedland and should be assessed further. This is of particular concern under the future scenarios where there is a substantial increase in heavy-duty vehicle movements.

Mobile emission sources are expected to increase substantially in future years. Emission estimates indicate that the potential emissions from shipping and heavy haulage activities in the Port Hedland area will significantly increase the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur in the area. Preliminary screening level modelling was undertaken of the estimated shipping emissions to assess whether future developments would need to include consideration of this issue as part any environmental impact assessment process.

The potential development of photochemical smog under future development scenarios requires investigation. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 11 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

should be undertaken in the event that additional increases in shipping (and heavy haulage) are proposed beyond those identified in the 2015-2020 future scenario. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur should be undertaken in the event that an industrial emission source is proposed in the Port Hedland area, including the Boodarie industrial area.

Subject to further details becoming available (shipping fuel source and quality), other contaminants

(such as PM2.5, heavy metals and other air toxics) that may result from shipping emissions while vessels are at berth, warrants further investigation.

The combined increase in diesel emission sources (shipping and heavy haulage vehicles) projected for the future is sufficient to suggest the need for undertaking baseline monitoring in the Port

Hedland area for PM2.5, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. For completeness, investigation into background ozone levels and the potential for the generation of photochemical smog is also recommended.

Concentrates of manganese and chromite are routinely exported through Port Hedland and are expected to grow in the future. The modelling of heavy metal concentrations in dust was beyond the scope of this study. Sufficient baseline monitoring data for determining or modelling heavy metal concentration was not available during the study. A preliminary estimate of heavy metal constituents based on analysis of source, indicates that further investigation is warranted. Depending on the findings and outcomes of the Department of Health’s study and investigations, the completion of a screening level assessment (to quantify metal concentrations within the dust) based on historic dust samples may be appropriate for further investigation. An assessment of the extent to which these metals may have been dispersed through the area may also need to be further investigated.

Adequate publicly available information to undertake an informed risk assessment was not accessible during the study, and therefore no judgment as to the potential risk posed from operations in Port Hedland is provided. The completion of a risk assessment involving direct access to all relevant sites as well as specific information on operations, layout and configuration, management plans and procedures requires further consideration, with particular focus on Wedgefield initially.

Adequate information to evaluate the main lighting sources in Port Hedland in comparison to the Australian Standards was not available during the time of the study. Lighting or energy audits of operations and facilities in Port Hedland are recommended, especially in conjunction with future expansion or development plans.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 12 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Port Hedland was gazetted as a townsite in 1896. During its early years of operation it was a service centre for the pastoral, goldmining and pearling industries. The discovery of large iron ore deposits in the Pilbara region has significantly influenced the Port Hedland area. Today, Port Hedland is a combination of residential, commercial, administrative and industrial facilities, including the port operations (Figure 1-1).

South Hedland was established in 1966 as a response to growing pressure on Port Hedland at the time. Located approximately 14km south of Port Hedland, South Hedland was originally designed for a population of 40,000. It is a mix of residential, commercial and administrative facilities.

Redbank lies on a small strip of elevated land adjacent to the South East Creek, south east of the Town area. It is a combination of residential and commercial activity, and is suggested to be an ideal location to serve as a “gateway” marker to the Town of Port Hedland (ToPH 2006).

Wedgefield was established during the 1960s as an area for general industry. It lies between the town area of Port Hedland and South Hedland. Previous town planning schemes made provision for caretakers’ dwellings to be located here, leading to a substantial permanent population being located in the Wedgefield area. There is also the periodic influx of construction workers in the Transient Workforce Accommodation zone and other sites throughout Wedgefield.

Port Hedland accommodates approximately 30% of the population, South Hedland 60% and Wedgefield and other rural areas 10% (WAPC 2003).

The port of Port Hedland is located at the end of a 20 nautical mile channel within a dredged basin. It is mainly a large volume bulk minerals export port moving iron ore, salt, manganese, chrome and copper concentrates. Other commodities are exported and imported through the port, including cattle, fuel and chemicals. The Port of Port Hedland is currently the largest port by tonnage in Australia, setting a record throughput of 110.6 Mtpa and 925 vessel movements during 2005–2006.

The Port Hedland Port Authority is responsible for facilitating trade through the Port, including the licensing of key port and marine services. Seven berths are situated within the inner harbour, with three available for general use (bulk commodity import and export) and a further four operated by BHPBIO for iron ore exports. During 2002-2003, the Port Hedland Port Authority commissioned a study to investigate expansion opportunities for the port operations. The Port Authority had identified the need to implement a planning strategy to ensure that its role of facilitating trade through the Port of Port Hedland was secure (Worley 2003).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 13 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The primary deliverable from the study was an Ultimate Development Plan (UDP) for the Port, and accounted for planning adequate capacity and suitable linkages to external infrastructure. The UDP has a time frame horizon of 100 years. Over a shorter term is the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) and represents a particular stage along the way, and is aligned to the current best estimates of trade development over the next 15-20 years. The ultimate development is currently being revised (pers comms. Andre Bush, PHPA).

Port Hedland is at a critical stage of development. The current resources boom in the State is expected to stimulate significant regional growth, in particular industrial activities which are likely to be accompanied by an increase in exports through the Port Hedland port.

With future committed projects such as Fortescue Metal Group Limited (FMG) and Hope Downs, the port will be required to have room for potential growth. Construction has already begun for the FMG facilities at Anderson Point and planning is underway for Hope Downs at Stanley Point (ToPH 2006), with additional public berths and stockyard facilities under consideration at Utah Point which are expected to serve a suite of smaller iron ore and dry bulk or concentrate exporters.

While industrial activities at the port are vital to the prosperity of the town, the operations and possible future expansions are not without environmental and community concern. Potential environmental impacts from shipping movements, road transport, stockpiles, ore trains and other such Port activities are noted as issues of concern for the community, especially the contribution of these activities to levels of dust, odour, noise, light and risk.

The growth or potential growth and change in the Port may exacerbate existing issues within Port Hedland on both an individual and a cumulative level. In particular:

The planned increase in iron ore operations by BHP Billiton (BHPB), Rio Tinto (Hope Downs) and Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) will change the footprint of infrastructure at the Port, as well as increasing the number of emission sources. It has the potential to change the footprint of impacts on the port area of Port Hedland including Wedgefield and the Town of Port Hedland;

Residential areas in the town centre, close to port operations, may experience increased noise, dust and other impacts as a result of the cumulative increase in operations, despite the individual company efforts to operate at ‘best practice’; and

The incompatibility between port operations and residential land use may pose a constraint to intensified port operations and affect the amenity of residents.

Against this background of regional growth, and land use conflicts, local government and various state government departments have combined to undertake a number of studies specific to Port Hedland. These studies have included the Pilbara Air Quality Study undertaken by the Department

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 14 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the Pilbara Coast Water Study by the Western Australian Department of Water (DoW), the Port Hedland Planning Study and Enquiry by Design coordinated by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the Town of Port Hedland (ToPH) led Land Use Master Plan project (currently underway) and the Port Hedland Health Study being conducted by the Department of Health (DoH) (Figure 1-2). The State Government has also recently completed an investigation into the need for a new port in the Pilbara to manage the anticipated export demand for the area¹s iron ore. The report concluded that a new port with an ultimate capacity greater than 300 million tonnes per annum was likely to be needed within six to ten years. A preferred site for the new port (Ronsard Island), has been identified, but considerably more work is required to determine the suitability of this site before a final decision is made.

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) was commissioned by the Department of Industry and Resources (DOIR) in December 2006 to undertake a cumulative impact study of the Port Hedland port operations. The study was designed to investigate the likely changes in key impacts arising from changes and growth in port operations, and the subsequent potential impact on the local community of Port Hedland and Wedgefield. The study was designed to investigate a series of potential development scenarios considered to be a reasonable representation of future port operations, both in terms of design, scale and timing. The purpose of the DOIR study was to examine the likely cumulative effect of a series of developments over time that individually may not create a significant impact, but may collectively contribute to an increase in the overall or cumulative impact on the community.

The environmental impacts considered most likely to require review in a study of this nature could be considered to be the potential changes in:

Air Quality – dust levels within the Port Hedland area are influenced by both industrial activities and natural occurrences, such as bushfires in the region. There is some concern over the potential health impacts associated with the community’s health due to the presence of dust, as well as amenity and issues of annoyance.

Odour – odorous activities have similar potential impacts of concern as those for air quality in general, that is amenity and annoyance, and depending on the actual source and type of odour potential health concerns.

Noise – as a working port, noise associated with heavy machinery and equipment such as stockpiling equipment, ship-loaders, conveyors, ships, trains, road trains, front end loaders and bulldozers is already present and may be intrusive to the residential and commercial areas. Extension, expansion or changes to the port operations may alter the noise sources and the extent of potential impact.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 15 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Light – the working port and its 24-hour operations are floodlit for safety and security. Extension or expansion of the port operations in the direction of the community may increase the potential impact, such as increase in light overspill.

Risk – acute risks are directly associated with the port operations and other associated activities linked to the port. Extension, expansion or changes to the port operations may alter the risks both in terms of the nature of the risk and its potential extent of impact.

Following an initial screening exercise (Section 4) the key focus of the cumulative study was determined to be the potential impact arising from changes to air quality and noise, and public risk. The emissions inventory highlighted several odour sources within the project area. Emissions estimations, in conjunction with the distance separation between the sites and to sensitive receptors, indicated that these potential odour sources were not so significant as to require separate or cumulative assessment. The need for a comprehensive light assessment was deemed not to be necessary in discussions with the client, given the nature and relative importance of the air and noise components of the study. The progression of the public risk component of the study was constrained by the limited publicly available information, and as agreed with the client is not reported.

1.2 Purpose and Structure of this Report SKM has been engaged by DOIR to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the proposed future activities associated with the Port Hedland port operations. The intention of the study is to qualitatively analyse the potential effects on the residential community of Port Hedland from the expanding port operations and associated activities as these occur over time. It is important to note that the individual emissions or source may not in itself cause an unacceptable impact or raise concern, however it is the cumulative contribution from all sources of the same type of impact that is of interest and concern to this study.

The cumulative assessment has considered two future scenarios of how the port operations might expand and develop in future years. The potential impacts from the future scenarios are compared to the impacts defined for a “bench-mark” year.

The approach adopted for this study has been to:

determine those port operations currently in place and those likely to be in place over the specified timeframe,

identify likely emission sources for key impacts,

quantify individual emission sources to be used as input to the cumulative impact model,

model the cumulative impact from the known or estimated sources,

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 16 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

compare the cumulative impact to a pre-determined criteria of acceptability or as an expression of comparison to the “bench-mark” year,

identify those impacts and locations where a cumulative impact on the community is approaching or exceeding the criteria of acceptability, or that of the “bench-mark” year,

provide recommendations based on the key findings.

It is intended that the findings of the cumulative assessment will:

assist evaluation of development options for future port development,

assist evaluation of development options for land use development outside the port area,

be used as input to the relevant land-use planning processes and forums, and

be used as a tool to re-evaluate future development options as necessary.

The report is structured as follows:

Section 1 presents background and context to the cumulative impact study.

Section 2 describes the project area in its regional context, with specific reference to biophysical, environmental and economic characteristics of Port Hedland. In this context the key sensitivities in the project area and the areas of likely potential impact are highlighted.

Section 3 describes the scoping exercise undertaken to identify key operations and activities, and relevant emission sources in the project area.

Section 4 presents the development scenarios investigated.

Section 5 summarises the air quality and noise modelling methodology, assumptions and results of the modelling for the development scenarios investigated. The detailed modelling studies are presented in the Appendices.

Section 6 presents the findings in context of the existing and potential future land management constraints/challenges.

Section 7 presents recommendations from the study.

Section 8 acknowledges the contributors to the study.

Section 9 provides references used in this report.

Section 10 provides acronyms and abbreviations used in this report.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 17 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Appended to this report are the detailed air quality and noise modelling and assessment reports, including supplementary information on mobile emission sources along with the preliminary light assessment. Public risk is not reported.

1.3 Study Limitations and Data Uncertainty The scenarios presented are essentially a snap-shot of how the port operations may develop in future. The scenarios are based on best available information that is available for use, and information that has been released or approved for release in the public arena. The scenarios take into account the development expectations of the Port Hedland Port Authority, as well as input from companies committed or planning to develop in the area.

In some circumstances data provided for inclusion in the assessment has been made available on the proviso that the details are not made publicly available for reasons of commercial confidentiality. As this study is concerned with the cumulative impact from all sources, the resultant cumulative impact is reported, and not the individual impact contributions.

It is also important to note that the currency of the information used in the study is to 1 March 2007. Therefore development proposals, export tonnages, and site layout configurations are indicative only, and may not be the final development that proceeds in future.

The inclusion of an activity or operation in the future scenarios is considered to be representative only and based on proposals for future development. The inclusion of an activity or operation in this study does not mean that all approvals are in place and that the project is proceeding, nor should it be interpreted as approval to do so.

Limitations specific to air quality modelling is detailed in Appendix A and in Appendix C for noise modelling.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 18 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Indian Ocean

----

I I I I I I / / / / / / / / / /

' ' ' ' ' ' \ ' \ ...... , .._... ' ct7.:7lo.. Oeop.arlment cf """"""" ~~.,.~ Industry and Resources Port Hedland IPort Hedland Locality Figure 1·1 ~ '"...... ~ - ..... Cumulative Impact Study --·0.0 :ltOtOf I-~

Figure 1-1 Port Hedland Location

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 19 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 1-2 Port Hedland Studies

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 20 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2. Regional Context (Operations and Environment Characteristics)

This section describes the Port Hedland port operations and its surrounds in the context of the existing environment. Biophysical, environmental, and economic characteristics are outlined, including the influence these factors have on the activities and operations undertaken in the study and project area.

The “study area” for the cumulative assessment is defined as being the area where the Port Hedland port operations are currently located, or can reasonably be expected to be located in the future. The study area also includes those areas where support infrastructure (such as stockyards and conveyors) or services (such as rail lines and power supplies) to the port operations are located.

The “project area” is defined as the geographic area that encompasses the core “study area” as well as the areas that are potentially affected or encroached upon by any of the identified impacts from the port operations and associated activities.

2.1 Port Hedland Port Operations The Port Hedland Port Authority controls the Port of Port Hedland. The port is situated at the end of a 20 nautical mile channel within a dredged basin. The channel is approximately 200m wide and dredged to a depth of between 14.1-15.3 metres. Eight berths are situated within the inner harbour - four are available for general use and four are operated by BHPBIO for iron ore export at Finucane Island and Nelson Point.

In the 2004-2005 financial year the Port Hedland Port Authority achieved a total throughput of 180.5Mtpa of commodity, a 20% increase over the previous financial year. Iron ore exports accounted for over 57% of the throughput and salt exports reached record levels of 3.6Mtpa tonnes. The rapid growth and expansion of the industries in and around Port Hedland using the port was unprecedented and the growth is anticipated to continue into the future.

The existing port infrastructure has a total throughput capacity of a maximum 320Mtpa (at 1 March 2007). Key industries currently using the port are BHPBIO, Dampier Salt, Consolidated Minerals and Newcrest. FMG is expected to be operational by 2008, followed by other prospective iron ore operators. Construction has already begun for the FMG facilities at Anderson Point and planning is underway for Hope Downs at Stanley Point (ToPH 2006) and additional infrastructure at Utah Point.

Table 2-1 is a summary of the key industries and operations of interest in the Port Hedland area with an overview of the likely expected changes to these operations in the immediate future. As discussed previously, this is notional only, and may be subject to change. Of particular note is the

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 21 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

possible future development of vanadium deposits and magnetite deposits in the Pilbara region. This may see further bulk material exports through the Port of up to 2Mtpa. However to date, there is no definite proposal and hence this potential development has been excluded from further consideration in the cumulative assessment.

With these future committed projects, the port will need to accommodate both growth in tonnage export and vessel movement. The rapid growth of the operators using the Port has placed enormous pressure on the Port Authority’s resources and infrastructure. The future of the Port and the likely direction of development and expansion is pre-planned to a certain extent through the Port Planning Study (Worley 2003) commissioned by the Port Hedland Port Authority. This planning strategy takes a long-term (and somewhat speculative view) to form the Ultimate Development Strategy (currently under review). The strategy is based on a 100-year planning horizon for the port’s future expansions, with recommendations for a review every five to seven years.

The Port Hedland Area Planning Study (WAPC 2003) identified a growth capacity of the port to support the export of 320Mtpa of ore. This is a throughput capacity, and is not a function of the intentions of the companies exporting through the Port. To accommodate an increase in tonnage throughput, the Port Authority has stated that it will be necessary to construct additional berths and support infrastructure to what is already in place or under construction. The first substantial expansion is the proposed development at Utah Point (currently subject to environmental impact assessment).

The State Government has also commissioned an independent study to identify sites suitable for the development of a further port. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure announced in January 2007 that an independent study had examined six sites and had identified Ronsard Island as having the most potential for a future port development. More detailed analysis of the feasibility of Ronsard Island is to be undertaken to confirm this site as the preferred location for the Port. The potential development of Ronsard Island as a port has not been included in this cumulative assessment.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 22 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Table 2-1 Existing operations of interest

Company Operations Current Operations (2004-2005) Future Projections (as determined at 1 March 2007) BHP Billiton Iron Ore Iron Ore transport, transfer, Operational at 118 Mtpa in 2004–2005. Future expansion planned to 165 Mtpa. (BHPBIO) processing, stockpiling and shipping. Fortescue Metals Iron Ore transport, transfer, Project approved for 45 Mtpa iron ore Future expansion planned. Group Limited (FMG) processing and shipping. production. FMG plan to ship magnetite in the near future. Dampier Salt Pty Ltd Salt “manufacture”, transport, transfer, Production approximately 3 Mtpa. Future growth predicted to 4 Mtpa. storage and shipping. If edible grade salt planned then potential contamination from dust from iron ore and other ores needs management – covered storage and loading salt is an option. Newcrest Copper concentrate transport, Production approximately 10,000 tpa. Future growth estimated to 130,000 tpa transfer, storage and shipping. but peaking at 240,000 tpa Birla Copper concentrate transport, No export in 2004-2005. Copper concentrate estimated to be transfer, storage and shipping. exported in 2010. Consolidated Minerals Manganese and chromite transport, Export approximately 500,000 tpa of Future growth in manganese exports transfer, storage and shipping. manganese. estimated to double. Export approximately 250,000 tpa of Future growth in chromite exports chromite. estimated to be over 500,000 tpa, but estimations do not extend to 2010. Various Livestock export. Approximately 20,000 tpa. Stable with no expected growth. Livestock numbers highly dependent on climate (rainfall). BP Oil and fuel storage. Combined amount of oil and fuel imported Oil and fuel import and storage expected approximately 440,000 tpa. to grow at a rate dependent on iron ore Caltex and mineral mining growth rates and may double in the future. Coogee Chemicals Chemical import and storage. Importing approximately 147,000 tpa. Imports expected to increase with growth in industry demand and then stabilise.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 23 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 24 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.2 Environmental - Biophysical Characteristics 2.2.1 Landforms and Topography The Pilbara Region is geologically very old and has been subject to erosion over a long period of time. It consists of three distinct geographical areas. The western part consists of the coastal sandy plains, the eastern third is desert and the balance is dominated by the Hammersley Ranges.

The Port Hedland area contains five broad landform units, being the coastal dunes, coastal flats, floodplains, offshore islands, and the northern dissected plateau (the Pilbara Block).

The rivers crossing the coastal plain have extensive floodplains (due to the relatively flat landform and the volume of water in times of peak flow). The volume of water corresponds with the pattern of rainfall in the region. The rivers are not permanent, and may be dry for extended periods of time (that is, more than a year) depending on the pattern of rainfall (WAPC 2003). South West and South Creeks are the dominant natural watercourses that traverse and drain a significant catchment 2 of approximately 73km into the Port Hedland harbour.

The physical characteristics of the landforms, such as the low-lying floodplain, are a constraint to the natural extent of development.

2.2.2 Soils and Geology Precambrian basement rocks occupy most of the Pilbara region, with exposed Precambrian igneous rock dominating the majority of the coastline.

Beard (1975) classified the Pilbara region into eight physiographic divisions, and Port Hedland is found in the Abydos Plain. The Abydos Plain is mostly on Archaen granite, but the coast-line is found on Quartnary alluvium. The coastal alluvial soils are characterised by red earthy sands (Hope Downs 2002).

The soils of the area are predominantly red, due to the presence of iron oxide. The hills have skeletal loamy soils while the tributary plains have duplex soils that consist of sand overlaying clay. The floodplains, ancient lakes and areas with volcanic rocks have clay soils. The soils of the alluvial plains in the northern regions differ in terms of texture and lime content because of differences in the geology of the hinterland (WAPC 2003).

The loose soils in the Pilbara, especially in the Port Hedland area, account for a naturally high background concentration of dust in the region. The relationship between dust and the air quality in Port Hedland is further detailed in Section 2.2.5, Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 25 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.2.3 Vegetation Beard (1975) describes the coastal vegetation of the Pilbara as being a terrestrial environment gradually merging into a marine environment consisting of tidal lagoons, samphire marsh or flats and mangrove. This gradual transition has been attributed to the coastal protection granted by reefs, and the small gradient of the Abydos Plain (ToPH 2004).

Vegetation in the Port Hedland area is sparse, and is mostly representative of semi-arid northern areas of the State. The absence of significant upper story vegetation across the project area reduces the likelihood of vegetation contributing a mitigating effect on local dust and noise levels.

2.2.4 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology The ephemeral rivers of the Pilbara region are dry for most of the year, flooding after heavy rains and often overflowing to inundate the coastal plain (Hope Downs 2002). There are five drainage basins in the Pilbara, of which Port Hedland lies in the Port Hedland Coastal Basin.

The Port Hedland Coastal Basin is made up of six major rivers – the Maitland, Harding, George, Sherlock, Yule and Turner Rivers. This river basin covers an area of 35,191km2 (SMEC 2004).

Alluvial aquifers along the main rivers are the most important groundwater resources in the Pilbara coast. These aquifers consist of sands and gravels, which are primarily recharged by fresh water from river flow (SMEC 2004). Generally, however, the coastal plain groundwater is brackish.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 26 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Geology Landforms Vegetation

Carlindi Granite Complex Foreshore nat " .c Mangrove De Gray Group Saline coastal nat -+- sde_ga.SDE_GA.Railways Mylonitic Granitoid - Sholl Shear Zone ~attiOO.OOOQM O.-!urn GI>Aa-1 Pippingarra Granitoid Complex ~ pG!t:l MGA94-ZoneSO Piggingarra Granitoid Complex - Leucoganites -+- sde_ga.SDE_GA.Railways

, __

\ I I Evaporation Ponds ( \ I I I .J---'-_J ------r I I I I I I (;? - I - .... I ' _,1 1~1 ' ' l------' ..... ' ' \

I \ \ \

Project Dfawing Title Otawlng No. Department of Industry and Resources Port Hedland Broad Physical Characteristics Figure 2-1 Cumulative Impact Study Port Hedland and Surrounding Areas ReviS;!OonNoo o.te. 2t01 .07 Pfojta ~3265

Figure 2-1 Physical characteristics

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 27 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability SliM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 28 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.2.5 Climate The Port Hedland area is located in the predominantly arid region of the Pilbara coast, classified as having a semi-desert tropical climate. It is characterised by high temperatures, low rainfall and high evaporation, with two main seasons – hot summers and mild winters. The area is also subject to tropical cyclones between November and March, which can bring heavy rainfall.

Temperature Temperatures in the summer months are very high with maximum temperatures exceeding 40°C (minimum around 25°C), especially in inland areas. Winters are milder with temperatures in the daily range of around 28°C to 13°C minimum.

Rainfall Monthly rainfall averages are the highest between November and March due to intense rainfall generally related to the tropical cyclones (SMEC 2004). Rainfall during May and June is generally a result of cold fronts moving across the south of the State, which occasionally extends into the Pilbara. Annual average rainfall for the Pilbara ranges from 180 mm to over 400 mm (Beard 1975). The long-term average annual rainfall is 301 mm.

Wind Seasonal wind pattern variations are evident in Port Hedland (as measured by the Bureau of Meteorology at the Port Hedland Airport). The predominant winds are east-south easterly, occurring primarily in the “winter” months, and north westerly winds occurring primarily in the “summer” months. Inter-annual variations in the wind flow across the region can be expected. However, the distinct seasonal pattern described is well established.

Further details are described in Appendix A1.

Tides The tides in Port Hedland are semi-diurnal, with a high tidal range that has the advantage of giving deep water in the channel approach to the port (SMEC 2004). The tidal fluctuations create limitations and challenges for shipping movements in and out of the port.

Cyclonic activity On average, two or three cyclones cross the northern coastline of Western Australia each year. During a cyclone, destructive winds of up to 200 km/h are not uncommon with maximum wind speeds up to 207 km/h being recorded. Heavy rainfall associated with some cyclones can result in widespread flooding that supports the local ecology by replenishing groundwater resources.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 29 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Tropical cyclonic activity occurs between the months of November and March, influencing the climatic conditions on the Pilbara coastline from the Exmouth Gulf to Port Hedland.

Air Quality The Pilbara region is covered by a National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) airshed that describes pollutant emissions. In the Pilbara Air Quality Study, the background levels of dust emissions in Port Hedland are described as being naturally high. In Figure 2-2 the natural background concentrations are represented by measurements at the Port Hedland Airport. The figure shows that the background levels often exceed the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) 3 standard level for dust particles (PM10 of 50 µg/m ) (DEP 2004b).

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

24-hour Average PM10 Concentration (µg/m3) Concentration PM10 Average 24-hour 0.0 1/8/2004 5/9/2005 19/4/2001 5/11/2001 24/5/2002 28/6/2003 14/1/2004 17/2/2005 24/3/2006 10/12/2002 10/10/2006

Figure 2-2 Daily Average PM10 Concentrations (April 1996–February 2006) (BHPBIO 2006)

In addition to these naturally high background levels of PM10 dust particles, the study also found that most of the PM10 measured in the Town of Port Hedland is locally generated (DEP 2004b).

Measurements of other atmospheric pollutants in Port Hedland, such as NOx and ozone, were below the NEPM criteria (DEP 2004b).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 30 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.3 Population and Land Use 2.3.1 Port Hedland Population Characteristics The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports the population of the township of Port Hedland to be 12,461 (2004) with the majority of the population in the 0 - 14 years age group (26.4%), followed by the 25-34 years age group (19.4%) (ABS 2006). Port Hedland has a young population with a median age of 30.8 years in 2004 compared with 32.3 years in Perth (ABS 2006). Based on the committed potential projects in the area, the population is projected to grow at a modest rate for the next 10 to 15 years (ToPH 2006).

Unemployment was below the state average (5.4%) at 4.8% in 2004, with the majority of the population employed in the resources sector.

2.3.2 Land-use and Tenure There is a range of land tenure arrangements in the Port Hedland area. Much of the region is covered by pastoral lease. Areas not covered by leases, National Parks, Reserves, State Agreements and freehold ownership are Unallocated Crown Land (UCL). In the Port Hedland area, this includes land for urban expansion at Pretty Pool, Wedgefield and South Hedland. Competing uses for UCL include industry expansion, town expansion, environmental protection, recreation and tourism, and heritage. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6.

2.4 Economic Characteristics – Industry and Business The Pilbara region is one of the driving forces behind the Western Australia economy. The Department of Local Government and Regional Development estimated the Pilbara's Gross Regional Product at $4.8 billion in 2004-05. The region’s economy is dominated by the mineral and petroleum industry. In 2004-05, production was valued at $20.6 billion, equivalent to 62% of the State’s total. Service industry such as retail trade and associated industries including manufacturing also contributed to the dynamic nature of the Pilbara’s economy (DLGRD 2006). Businesses and industry operating in the area include BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Dampier Salt, Fortescue Metals Group, Consolidated Minerals, BP, Caltex and the Port Hedland Port Authority.

2.4.1 Aquaculture and Fishing (Commercial and Recreational) There are currently two aquaculture leases in the Port Hedland area - a pearling lease between Weerdee and Downes Islands and a land-based hatchery for marine shells (including trochus and pearl oysters) on Downes Island.

The use of the Port Hedland area for fishing and unloading varies on a periodical basis. Fishers operating from Port Hedland operate to the north and north-east of the town up to approximately to the mouth of the De Grey River. It is estimated that there may be up to 18 vessels in the region at certain times of the year. There is limited suitable infrastructure for fishers along this part of the

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 31 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

coastline. This has tended to limit the number of operators fishing in the area. Port Hedland is the only major port facility between Point Samson and Broome.

Fishing from recreational craft is an important recreational pursuit for many Port Hedland residents, given that access to coastal areas by vehicle is extremely limited. Department of Fisheries estimates that there are about 2,000 recreational craft in the Port Hedland area (WAPC 2003).

Two major boat-launching areas are provided in the Port Hedland townsite, at Finucane Island and adjacent to the port. The Port Hedland Port Authority has constructed a fishing/small craft jetty, and permits commercial fishing boats access to a wharf when the commercial wharves are unavailable (WAPC 2003).

2.4.2 Pastoral Activities There are seven pastoral stations in operation in the region and they predominantly run cattle. All pastoral leases expire in 2015, and may lead to altered land tenure in future. Based on provisions of the Native Title Act 1993, extensions of leases in future will be for terms varying between 21 and 49 years (WAPC 2003).

Cattle holding yards were established on the North West Coastal Highway in 1994, approximately 25km west of Port Hedland. The existing cattle holding yards are located immediately adjacent to the Boodarie Strategic Industrial Estate, on land vested for the purpose of cattle holding. The yards take up only a fraction of the 2,500ha industrial estate and the lease area is crossed by easements for the Pilbara Energy Pty Ltd gas pipeline.

Cattle loading is currently constrained in the Port and can be loaded only during a six-hour period due to the diurnal tidal conditions.

2.4.3 Tourism Port Hedland is recognised as a “gateway” in the Pilbara Region, especially for people travelling from Karijini National Park and Karratha to the Kimberley Region. Port Hedland has a range of tourism infrastructure to cater for a variety of tourists, with four caravan parks, five motels and a number of smaller accommodation providers, catering for backpackers and contractors. All the caravan parks have on-site chalets and caravans, as well as caravan and camping sites.

2.4.4 Mining and Commercial Activities There are no known major economic mineral deposits within the project area, although iron ore and salt are stockpiled and exported from the port. Mineral producers in the Eastern Pilbara also use the port of Port Hedland for the export of minerals including manganese, copper concentrate and feldspar.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 32 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The main industry in Port Hedland is currently the crushing, screening, blending, stockpiling and ship-loading of iron ore. This industry commenced in 1962 with Goldsworthy Mining Ltd constructing a 115km railway line from Mt Goldsworthy to Port Hedland. Since this time, BHPBIO has become the major industrial operator in the Port Hedland area. Iron ore mined at Mt Whaleback (Newman), Jimblebar, Yarrie and Yandi (approximately 460km south of Port Hedland) are railed into Port Hedland. Other iron ore exporters planning to operate through Port Hedland include the Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (FMG), Atlas Iron Limited, Aurox and RioTinto.

Other metal commodities are also stockpiled and exported through Port Hedland including copper concentrate (Newcrest, Birla), Manganese (Consolidated Minerals) and Chromite (Consolidated Minerals).

Basic raw materials, such as sand, limestone, gravel and hard rock used in development projects and ongoing road construction and maintenance are obtained locally from a variety sources. None of these are located within the project area.

Dampier Salt carries out salt harvesting at its solar salt operation in Port Hedland. Water is extracted from Rock Cod hole Creek and Ridley Creek, and then processed through a series of concentrators (evaporative ponds) to extract the salt. Bitterns (rinsate from the extracted salt) is discharged into 6 Mile and Paradise Creek (ToPH 2004). The Dampier Salt lease area covers about 7,800 hectares and has the capacity to produce in excess of 2.7 million tpa. Brine is transferred through a series of channels and pumping stations running parallel to the coast.

2.5 Associated Infrastructure and Support Services 2.5.1 Air Services The Port Hedland International Airport is the only air traffic control service in the region. It has one of the largest runways in Western Australia and is able to accommodate aircraft up to Boeing 737s and larger aircrafts in emergencies. There are no plans currently to expand the runways or update any related infrastructure (ToPH 2006).

During 2004-2005 there were 8,736 flight movements at the Port Hedland International Airport, and 4,302 movements during 2005-2006. Although there were less flight movements, larger planes were used and more passengers transported during 2005-2006.

A helipad is also operational at the Port.

2.5.2 Road Network Currently, the two main routes in and out of Port Hedland are via the:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 33 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Redbank bridge on Wilson Street, with an average of over 10,000 vehicles per day moving over the bridge, including salt trucks and heavy haulage road trains (ToPH 2006); and

Great Northern Highway (National Highway No. 1), with over 10,000 vehicles per day passing along. The Great Northern Highway is the main connection between Perth and Darwin and has the capacity for heavy haulage and as well as high and wide loads. The highway is especially important in providing the major transport route for trucks carrying salt, ore and manganese, copper and chromium concentrates from the mine sites to the port for stockpiling and export (ToPH 2006).

The large volumes of traffic (mainly trucks, road trains, tourists and locals) travelling between South Hedland and Port Hedland currently cause many problems for the Great Northern Highway in this area. Traffic is also affected at the entry to Wedgefield due to a junction interrupting the flow. The majority of the road is undivided two lane highway, with the exception of the section immediately south of Port Hedland Road intersection where it becomes two lanes each direction.

The entry to the West End side of the Port Hedland Port Authority is through the Port Hedland Road, and the Finucane Road to the Finucane Island port entry for BHPBIO operations. Port Hedland Road is currently the only route in and out of the Port at this west end. It is an undivided two-lane road with the exception of some median separation at intersections. For safety reasons, it has been suggested that the Port Hedland Road be duplicated at some point in the future.

The Port Hedland Port Authority public berths are currently utilised by Damper Salt, Consolidated Minerals and Process Minerals International. The materials for shipping are transported by trucks through the Port Hedland Road and Wilson Street (Redbank Bridge), contributing to traffic flow problems. Traffic flow modelling was not within the scope of this study.

2.5.3 Rail Network The existing rail network is owned and operated by BHPBIO and includes the Goldsworthy Line that runs east-west to Finucane Island, and the Mt Newman Line which runs north-south to Nelson Point. Traffic on both these lines is expected to increase in the coming years (ToPH 2006).

FMG is planning a railway link for its mining operations at Cloud Break to new port facilities at Anderson Point currently under construction. Hope Downs and Rio Tinto are conducting feasibility studies for additional rail lines (ToPH 2006) in the area.

There is currently no third party access to the BHPBIO’s rail lines into Port Hedland. At the start of 2007, 14 prospective companies formed the Pilbara Iron Ore Alliance to seek for third party access to the BHPBIO and Rio Tinto rail network in the Pilbara. FMG, not part of this alliance, is also pursuing legal means to gain access to BHPBIO’s rail infrastructure.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 34 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.5.4 Energy Supply Electricity in the Port Hedland area is supplied through Horizon Power’s integrated North-West network that links Port Hedland to Dampier/Karratha, Wickham/Cape Lambert and Tom Price/Paraburdoo. Western Power purchases electricity from Hamersley Iron’s Dampier Power Station and Robe River Iron Associates’ Cape Lambert Power Station. Western Power controls and monitors the North-West transmission network from a control centre at the Karratha Terminal Station. A 220 kV transmission line links the Karratha Terminal to the Hedland Terminal located just south of Wedgefield. Pretty Pool has underground power lines and Horizon Power plans to bury other lines in Cooke Point, the West End and Cemetery Beach.

Power generation is supplemented with a gas turbine power station (3 x 35 MW) located at the Boodarie Industrial Estate. The addition of this plant has allowed Horizon Power to decommission the existing diesel-fired Redbank power station, and relies entirely on the 220 kV supply from Karratha (WAPC 2003).

Natural gas supply is via the PEPL pipeline (approximately 213 km long and runs from Dampier to Port Hedland within a 600m wide corridor).

2.5.5 Water Supply Port Hedland’s drinking water supply is pumped from bore fields on the Yule and De Grey Rivers and is managed by the Water Corporation through the Port Hedland Regional Water Supply Scheme. The water is stored in tanks in South Hedland, and transferred to other bulk storage tanks in the Port area and on Finucane Island (ToPH 2006).

2.5.6 Waste Management The landfill site for the Town of Port Hedland is east of South Hedland. The site is licensed by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) as Rural landfill - Management Category C. The management category is an indication of volume, and the South Hedland site is capable of accommodating between 5,000 and 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The site is currently classified as suitable for Class 2 waste only, which means inert waste, putrescible waste and low hazardous waste (certain types of metals). A standard landfill buffer zone is 500m from the face of putrescible waste, and the South Hedland site is 1,500m from the nearest residential area. The life of the landfill depends largely on the rate of urban encroachment, although management of the site will determine the extent to which residential areas are affected (WAPC 2003).

An industrial waste incinerator owned by Oil Energy Corporation Pty Ltd (OEC) is located in Wedgefield. It is licensed by the DEC. OEC treats and destroys organic based waste for industry and small businesses in the Port Hedland area. Under the ‘prescribed premises category’ of Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987, the OEC facility has approval for incineration of 100kg or more per hour and liquid waste for 100 tonnes or more per year.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 35 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

2.5.7 Waste Water Two sewage treatment plants are located within the project area, at Spinifex Hill (Town of Port Hedland) and South Hedland. These two sites have a combined capacity to serve a population of 15,000. The former is running at 70% capacity and the latter at 50% with a maximum capacity to treat 24,000kg of waste water a day. Waste water from the treatment plants is treated to a secondary standard and is mostly used to irrigate public open spaces and recreational facilities (ToPH 2006).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 36 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

3. Cumulative Impact Assessment Approach and Methodology

This section describes the scoping exercise undertaken to identify key operations and activities, and relevant emission sources in the project area, including how the:

port operations currently in place and those likely to be in place over the specified timeframe where identified; likely emission sources for key impacts were identified; and individual emission sources to be used as input to the cumulative impact model were quantified.

3.1 Current Port Operations Existing port operations are well defined and have been summarised in the Port Hedland Planning Study and the Town of Port Hedland’s Land Use Master Planning process. Port operations were verified in consultation with DOIR, the Port Hedland Port Authority, and representatives of the relevant organisations operating in Port Hedland (Section 8).

The existing port operations included in the assessment are detailed in Section 4.

3.2 Future Port Operations Proposed future port operations, including both the expansion of existing operations and new operations to the port, cannot be as clearly defined as the current operations, and hence there are uncertainties inherent in the subsequent cumulative assessment.

As is reasonable to expect for proposals that are still to commence implementation, there is often some “variability” in their actual design and key characteristics such as the actual size of the project and the timing for implementation. To account for this “uncertainty” and to ensure consistency in the assessment time-frame, a “cut-off” date for defining the operations was adopted, being 1 March 2007. This means the intentions for a project or that of a company up to this date has been accounted for. Any changes arising or being confirmed after this point in time have not been accounted for in the assessment. In particular it is noted that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure recently announced improvements to management at the port that increase the estimated the port capacity from 320Mtpa to 420Mtpa; and BHPBIO now has a growth target of 300Mtpa by 2015 compared to the study estimate of 165Mtpa for the 2015-2020 scenario.

Proposed future port operations were also verified in consultation with DOIR, the Port Hedland Port Authority, and representatives of the organisations operating or intending to operate through the port. The future port operations included in the assessment are detailed in Section 4.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 37 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

3.3 Cumulative Impacts of Interest As outlined in Section 1, previous government studies and reports have identified a number of impacts (on the community living in the Town of Port Hedland) arising from the activities undertaken at or in association with the Port of Port Hedland. This includes impacts associated with noise, risk, light and air quality. This study focuses on the key impacts associated with air quality and noise.

3.3.1 Air quality Historically, the major air quality issue within Port Hedland is considered to be dust. Dust is generally defined as particles that can remain suspended in the air by turbulence for an appreciable length of time. Depending on a number of factors, dust may present both an environmental and human health issue.

Dust is commonly defined by the size of the particles, with particles commonly classified as:

Total suspended particulate (TSP), which is all particulate with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 50 μm diameter,

PM10, particulate with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 10 μm diameter,

PM2.5, particulate with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 2.5 μm diameter.

Extensive monitoring and characterisation of particles in Port Hedland (BHPBIO 2006) has identified a large proportion of the airborne dust being crustal in nature and being larger than 10 microns. In terms of assessing potential health impact, PM10 is considered to be a more representative measure of particulate in Port Hedland. TSP serves as an indicator of the amenity or nuisance factor that is often associated with dust.

Only TSP and PM10 have been considered further in this assessment due to insufficient PM2.5 monitoring data being currently available in Port Hedland on which to base modelling. An assessment of the environmental and health impact of the dust’s chemical constituents was outside of the scope this assessment.

An emission inventory of the main mobile emission sources was completed to gain an understanding of the potential change in diffuse emission sources (of pollutants other than particles) in the study area. Preliminary modelling was then undertaken of shipping emissions for emissions of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur as the potential for significant increases in the emission of these parameters was identified.

3.3.2 Noise (industrial and transport) To the general public, noise may be described as unwanted sound or an annoyance; however it can disrupt people’s lives, causing loss of sleep, interference to activities and emotional stress. Most

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 38 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

environmental noise includes a wide band of frequencies and, by convention, is measured through the "A" filter of a sound-level meter. The A-weight discriminates against low-frequency and very high-frequency sound. In effect, it "weights" the physical sound spectrum to account for the frequency response of the human ear. It therefore serves as a reliable and readily measured estimate of loudness.

Noise regulations specified in WA assign noise criteria to take account of the land use where the noise is received as well as the surrounding land uses. The criteria are referred to as “assigned noise levels”.

Noise modelling has taken into account both industrial and traffic sources, and considers the impact on residential and accommodation areas of Port Hedland and Wedgefield respectively.

3.4 Identifying emission sources for key impacts For each of the port operations identified, a description of the operations was compiled from publicly available materials. These materials are detailed in the reference section of this report. For each operation, a list of the major activities involved or likely to be associated with the operation was compiled. A scoping exercise was undertaken to “score” whether each activity was likely to contribute an air, odour, noise or light emission, or would contribute to risk. A simple scoring method of “yes”, “no” or “maybe” was adopted, where the latter accounted for an activity requiring further consideration. Where a particular piece of equipment associated with an activity was clearly identifiable as the source, this was also identified. The scoping exercise was recorded in matrix form and was the basis for further refining the operations to be included in the scenarios (Table 3-1). This matrix was applied to both the air quality and noise assessments.

Key emission sources were verified in consultation with representatives of the organisations operating or intending to operate through the Port of Port Hedland. As such only key or significant emission sources (and not all emission sources) are included in the respective models. A common set of infrastructure emission sources was applied to both the air and noise assessments, including the associated co-ordinates of the sources. As a subset of this information was provided in confidence for use in the study, a detailed list of the exact emission sources has not been published in this report or the associated technical appendices.

3.5 Quantifying emission sources For each of the operations and activities scoring a “yes” or “maybe” in the scoping matrix, attempts were made to source a quantified emission for that activity, particularly for the 2004-2005 bench- mark scenario. Where this data was available, an extrapolation or estimation (based on this data) was applied to the future scenarios. In the event that a quantified emission was not available, emissions were estimated using appropriate emission estimate techniques.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 39 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The approach used for air emission estimation is detailed in Appendix A1 for particles (dust) and in Appendix A2 for mobile emission sources (heavy duty vehicle, aircraft and ships). Further but preliminary analysis of shipping emission estimates is detailed in Appendix A3.

The approach used for noise (sound power) estimation (industrial and transport) is detailed in Appendix C.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 40 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Table 3-1 Scoping Matrix - Existing operations in Port Hedland and potential impacts of interest *

Industry Activity Air Quality Odour Noise Light Risk Operations and activities taking place on Port Hedland Port Authority Land Iron Ore transport Rail Rail Rail Rail Iron Ore transfer Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Iron Ore processing Crushing and / or Crushing and / or Yard area BHP Billiton Iron Ore – iron screening screening ore Iron Ore stockpiling Yes Yard area Iron Ore ship loading Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Iron Ore shipping Iron ore carrier Iron ore carrier Berths Iron Ore transport Rail Rail Rail Rail Iron Ore transfer Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Iron Ore processing Crushing and / or Crushing and / or Yard area Fortescue Metal Group – screening screening iron ore Iron Ore stockpiling Yes Yard area Iron Ore ship loading Conveyor Conveyor Conveyor Iron Ore shipping Iron ore carrier Iron ore carrier Berths Salt transport Road Road Road Road Salt transfer Dozer Dozer Yard area Dampier Salt - Salt Salt stockpiling Dozer Dozer Yard area Salt ship loading Conveyor Conveyor Yard area Salt shipping Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Berths Copper concentrate transport Road Road Road Road Copper concentrate transfer Dozer Dozer Yard area Newcrest (Nifty) – Copper Copper concentrate stockpiling Dozer Dozer Yard area concentrate Copper concentrate loading Dozer Dozer Yard area Copper concentrate shipping Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Berths

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 41 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Industry Activity Air Quality Odour Noise Light Risk Manganese transport Road Road Road Road

Consolidated Minerals Manganese transfer Dozer Dozer Yard area (Woodi Woodi Mine) - Manganese stockpiling Dozer Dozer Yard area Manganese Manganese ship loading Dozer Dozer Yard area Manganese shipping Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Berths Chromite transport Road Road Road Road Chromite transfer Dozer Dozer Yard area Consolidated Minerals - Chromite stockpiling Dozer Dozer Yard area Chromite Chromite ship loading Dozer Dozer Yard area Chromite shipping Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Berths Copper concentrate transport Road Road Road Road Copper concentrate transfer Dozer Dozer Yard area Birla Nifty Copper concentrate stockpiling Dozer Dozer Yard area Copper concentrate ship loading Dozer Dozer Yard area Copper concentrate shipping Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Berths BP Tank farm Yes Yes Yes Yes Bulk fuel storage Caltex Tank Farm Yes Yes Yes Yes Bulk acid and bulk caustic Yes Yes Yes Yes Coogee Chemicals chemical storage Livestock transport Road Yes Road Road Road Livestock Livestock ship loading Yes Yes Yes Yes Port Tugs, pilot vessels Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Boating and Shipping

Port Helicopter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Heliport

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 42 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Industry Activity Air Quality Odour Noise Light Risk Operations and activities associated with Port operations taking place beyond Port Authority Land Waste Management Waste Water Treatment Plant – Yes Yes Yes Port Hedland Waste Water Treatment Plant – Yes Yes Yes South Hedland Council – Class 2 Inert Landfill Yes Yes Dozer Yes (South Hedland) OCE Incinerator facility for Yes Yes Dozer Yard area Yes intractable waste (Wedgefield) Airport Aircraft Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Town Swimming pool Chlorine storage and use Yes Yes Yes Power generation and Port Hedland Power Station (gas Yes Yes Yes Yes transfer fired, diesel back-up) Substation Yes? Yes? Substation Yes? Yes? Natural Gas Pipeline PEP (Pilbara Energy Pipeline) Yes Gas Pipeline Karratha to Port Hedland via Boodarie Rail line Yarrie (Hamersley) Yes Yes Yes Yes? Yes Mt Newman (BHPBIO) Yes Yes Yes Yes? Yes Goldsworthy (BHPBIO) Yes Yes Yes Yes? Yes Major Hazard Facilities Various Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Dangerous Goods Licensed Various Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes Premises * Note: That a blank box indicates a score of “No”, and “Yes?” indicated further clarification was required before being included in the modelling.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Page 43 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability SlfM

This page has been intentionally left blank

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 44 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Following the scoping exercise and the initial quantification of the emission sources, the key developments were considered to be:

The Port Hedland Port Authority proposes to develop the Utah Point area as a public wharf area for the operation of stockpiling and ship-loading facilities. The Port Hedland Port Authority expects the facilities to handle the export of nine million tonnes per annum of bulk commodities, consisting mainly of manganese, chromium and iron ore.

Fortescue Metals Group Limited (FMG) is currently developing a port and stockpile facility on land vested with the Port Hedland Port Authority and adjacent vacant Crown land. When the facility is operational (expected 2008) it will consist of a rail loop, stockyard and a conveyor system to transfer iron ore from the stockyard to a new wharf and ship-loader at Anderson Point. FMG’s facility is planned to initially export 45 million tonnes per annum of iron ore through the Port Hedland Port. FMG’s proposed future developments include doubling the capacity of the facility to 90 million tonnes per annum, and would include a second wharf and ship-loader and duplicating the stockyard.

Hope Downs Management Services (HDMS) has proposed to develop a stockyard and ship loading facility at Harriet Point. The HDMS facility is planned to export 30 Mtpa of iron ore. When the facility is operational, it is expected to consist of a rail unloading facility, stockyard and a conveyor system to transfer iron ore from the stockyard to a new wharf and ship loader.

BHP Billiton Iron Ore (BHPBIO) currently operates two major stockyard and ship loading facilities in Port Hedland at Nelson Point and Finucane Island. Iron ore is transported by rail and processed on site before being stockpiled and finally exported. During the 2004-2005 year BHPBIO exported 103.3 million tonnes per annum of iron ore. For the 2010 future scenario it has been forecast that 152 Mtpa of iron ore will be exported, increasing to 165 million tonnes per annum of iron ore in the future (BHPBIO 2006).

The potential changes in air quality (dust), noise and risk were considered to be the key areas for further investigation with modelling to be undertaken of dust and noise as a priority with a desk-top

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 45 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

review of documentation available for the identified dangerous goods storage locations to ensure the demonstrated public risk is within tolerable levels (EPA 2000).

The preliminary estimates of emissions from mobile emissions sources (heavy duty vehicles, aircraft and shipping) produced results showing significant increases in emissions of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur (Appendix A2 and Appendix A3) in comparison to the relatively low base-case emissions. The preliminary estimates are subject to numerous assumptions. In the absence of local monitoring data and as no major industrial emission source of these parameters was identified in future scenarios, these pollutants were not subject to further modelling in this assessment.

3.6 Scenario Development The scenarios developed for this study are essentially a snap-shot of how the port operations may develop in future and is detailed in Section 4.

3.7 Modelling and Assessment of the Scenarios The intent of the modelling is to assess the relative change in the key parameters of air quality and noise arising as a result of the development specified in the future scenarios. This change is important both in terms of the quantum and the spatial variation.

A qualitative and quantitative comparison for air and noise impacts has been provided where possible. A qualitative assessment of the future scenarios in comparison to the bench-mark year is provided in all cases. In addition, a quantitative comparison to environmental criteria has also been undertaken where these criteria are available.

The assistance of BHPBIO is to be noted in allowing access to the company’s air quality model and noise model for the Port Hedland area. These two models provided the basis on which to establish the cumulative models. The BHPBIO models have been verified for the BHPBIO operations, including verification through field measurements. Field verification of emissions from other sources added to the models has not been carried out as part of this study. Any subsequent limitation associated with the future scenario modelling is described in the relevant study reports (Appendix A1 and Appendix C).

The approach to modelling and assessment of the cumulative impact from air emissions (dust) is detailed in Appendix A1. A summary is provided in Section 3.7.2.

The mobile emission source inventory is detailed in Appendix A2 with the preliminary modelling of shipping emissions detailed in Appendix A3.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 46 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The approach used for noise modelling and the method of assessment of the cumulative impact from noise is detailed in Appendix C. A summary is provided in Section 3.7.3.

It is important to note that this assessment addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the routine operations only. The assessment does not account for impacts associated with construction activities, such as fugitive dust emissions that may arise from the construction of new port infrastructure that may be underway during 2010 and 2015-20.

Similarly, while the study takes into account the relative contribution of traffic and transportation associated with the operations (such as the trucking of ore into the Port), the cumulative assessment does not account for traffic and transportation impacts associated with construction activities such as fugitive dust and noise arising from construction of new access roads.

3.7.1 Selection of criteria for comparison As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the environmental or cumulative impact assessment reference point is the base-case scenario covering the financial year 2004-2005. This provides a benchmark for comparison. It is a starting point from which to consider future developments and potential impacts and to review the comparative change in impacts over time.

The ambient air quality criteria referenced for comparison to the air quality modelling results is detailed in Appendix A1. In summary this is:

3 PM10 of 50 μg/m (24-hr average) at sensitive receptors and is based on the NEPM PM10 standard to assess potential health impacts TSP of 150 μg/m3 (24-hr average) at sensitive receptors and is based on the Kwinana EPP Area C limit to assess potential amenity impacts.

The criteria referenced for comparison to the noise modelling results are detailed in Appendix C. In summary:

for noise attributable to industrial sources, the impact at sensitive premises (residences) is

assessed against the LA10 assigned level during the night-time period (2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and public holidays), and is based on

the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations 1997. The LA10 noise descriptor, defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the time, has been used. for noise associated with transport the impact at sensitive premises (residences) is assessed as an increase in noise at sensitive receptors, based on noise amenity ratings, and takes account of

the data available to the study. The LA10(24hr) noise descriptor, defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the time in a 24 hour period, has been used.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 47 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

for noise associated with aircraft, reference is made to AS 2021-2000, and the limiting noise

criterion is described in terms of the LAmax, that is the maximum noise level (measured on the 'slow' meter response).

3.7.2 Modelling and assessment approach for air quality Air quality impacts from the port handling facilities have been modelled using the Victorian EPA’s AUSPLUME computer dispersion Model (Version 6). AUSPLUME has recently been upgraded to enable a more rigorous treatment of atmospheric dust dispersion than the previous versions. AUSPLUME is one of the primary models for assessing impacts from industrial sites in Australia.

AUSPLUME was configured to predict the ground-level concentrations on a 0.5km rectangular grid. This grid is expected to restrict the duration of model runs, whilst using the particle deposition algorithm. It is predicted that this grid mesh will not capture near source maxima, but will be sufficient to accurately estimate dust impacts at locations further from the sources, including the township of Port Hedland.

Due to the relatively flat terrain in the area modelled the model was run without incorporating terrain effects. In addition, any terrain effects would not be significant compared to the uncertainties in source emission estimates.

Time series meteorological data included one hour averaged values of: Wind speed and direction; Ambient air temperature; Pasquill- Gifford Stability Class; and Atmospheric mixing height, and was derived from meteorological measurements taken at Port Hedland airport by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) for the year 2004-2005.

The dust sources were modelled as volume sources. Emission rates for all sources were varied on an hourly basis using the estimated hourly throughput rates for each process, based on data provided by the relevant companies. These were then used to provide a variable emission rate file for input to the AUSPLUME model.

The approach to modelling and assessment of the cumulative impact from air emissions is detailed in Appendix A1.

3.7.3 Modelling and assessment approach for noise Impacts from traffic noise and industrial noise have been modelled separately using SoundPLAN software. The SoundPLAN software is used worldwide for road, rail and industry noise prediction, and its use is consistent with published guidance from the WA EPA. Colour noise contour maps were also produced using SoundPLAN software.

A 3 dimensional geo-database model of the Port Hedland region was created in SoundPLAN to model traffic and industrial noise.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 48 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The CoRTN (Calculation of Road Traffic Noise) method was used to predict traffic noise. Due to the high volumes of heavy vehicles and road trains modelled in this study, separate road source strings were used in SoundPLAN to describe light vehicles, heavy vehicles and road trains. The road strings for heavy vehicles and road trains were separated into exhaust and engine/tyre noise to allow for consideration of the higher noise emission height on heavy vehicles.

The CONCAWE noise prediction algorithms were used to predict industrial noise. CONCAWE is widely accepted as an appropriate method to accommodate meteorological effects when predicting noise over large distances.

For industrial plant operational considerations, a worst-case noise scenario was considered. All sound power, spectra values, and results are LA10 values. Tonality, impulsive noise, and modulation characteristics are considered to be absent from the received noise. Sound power and spectra for machinery were obtained from previous noise measurements of similar machinery to that modelled.

Noise model predictions are presented as noise contour maps and noise increase maps for both the Port Hedland and Wedgefield areas.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 49 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 50 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

4. Development Scenarios

This section defines the bench-mark case for the port operations in 2004-2005, and defines the two future development scenarios modelled for this assessment. It details the operations and activities known and assumed to be operational for each of the scenarios. It defines the key emission sources and emission estimates for each scenario. For the bench-mark case it details the assumptions used to determine the emission estimate.

Due to the commercially sensitive nature of much of the future scenario data provided by the companies, and their express request that certain information remain out of the public domain at this stage, only limited information is reproducible in this report. A generalised guide to the emission estimates and infrastructure layout for the future scenarios is therefore provided.

4.1 Criteria for selecting scenarios The scenarios used in this cumulative study are considered realistic scenarios, and are reflective (as close as possible) to what is likely to occur based on approved projects, rather than proposals that are in an earlier stage of planning. The study does therefore not include the consideration of the potential development of Port facilities at Ronsard Island and subsequent development or changes in Port Hedland that may be associated with a potential second port. Similarly gas processing and the export of vanadium and magnetite are also excluded from the assessment.

The scenarios are based on best available information that is available for use, and information that has been released or approved for release in the public arena. The scenarios take into account the development expectations of the Port Hedland Port Authority, as well as input from companies committed or planning to develop in the area. The scenarios reflect closely the developments envisaged in the Port Hedland Port Authority Planning Study Phase 2 (PHPA 2003). It is noted in the Phase 2 report that consideration was given to a range of planning, engineering and environmental issues when determining the type, nature and extent of development. This included:

existing port users and related growth projections for these industries;

potential new port users for both existing and new resources, and new industries;

urban development constraints;

noise, dust and mangrove issues; and

geotechnical conditions, berth orientation, channel capacity. The scenarios developed for this cumulative impact assessment, depart from the intent of the Phase 2 report to the extent that only “real” proposals are included, that is where a proponent is clearly identified. Most significantly, the scenarios do not account for gas processing facilities at the Port in the future.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 51 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The information considered for inclusion in the scenarios is current to the 1st March 2007. The inclusion of an operation or activity in the future scenarios should not be considered pre-emptive of any approvals process and care should be taken to confirm the actual status of the individual operations with the relevant proponent or company in time.

4.2 Timeframe The temporal scope for the modelling study spans 2004-2005 to 2015-2020. Three notional scenarios have been established:

a base-case year to set the bench-mark for defining and comparing the operations, infrastructure and emissions, and is taken to be the year range 2004-2005; a short-term future scenario notional of operations and infrastructure in the immediate future taken to be 2010; and a longer-term future scenario notional of operations and infrastructure in 10–15 years out from the base-case, and taken to be the year range 2015–2020.

This timeframe achieves DOIR’s requirements for the study to consider realistic scenarios, and to be reflective (as close as possible) of what is likely to occur based on approved projects, rather than proposals that are in the early stages of planning.

The environmental or cumulative impact assessment reference point was taken to be the financial year range 2004-2005. This year range represents a benchmark for comparison. It is a starting point from which to consider future developments and potential impacts. It should not be assumed or interpreted that this reference point or benchmark year is either acceptable or unacceptable in terms of the environmental criteria, as this may be variable across the study disciplines. To assess the likely environmental acceptability of the impact, specific reference should be made to the air quality criteria and noise criteria defined for this study.

One of the benefits of selecting 2004-2005 as the benchmark year is that environmental data sets are available for both air quality and noise, and that the operations in place at the time are well defined and traceable in the event that verification is required. In addition, BHPBIO has provided access to the company’s air quality and noise models for which verified emissions are available for the bench-mark year.

The extent of the temporal range for the study was set to 2015-2020. DOIR required only those proposals with some likelihood of proceeding actually be included for consideration in the assessment. This meant that before a proposal was considered for inclusion, it had to be demonstrated that either an environmental approval was in place for the proposal, or a form of company endorsement to pursue approval was identifiable in the public arena. Where a “proposal” was not clearly identifiable or linked to a “proponent” these too were excluded from further

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 52 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

consideration. Such “proposals” include the development of down stream processing of iron ore at the Boodarie industrial estate, and gas processing facilities in the Port, as had been identified in the Port Authority studies. To account for numerous “uncertainties” in defining the likely port operations in this longer horizon a range was also adopted. The range of 2015-2020 means that any project that is likely to be operational at some time in that period will be assumed to be operating for the purposes of the cumulative assessment.

It should be noted that these time frames have been selected to account for those operations and infrastructure that are realistically possible in future. Whilst it is noted that the Port Hedland Port Authority’s Ultimate Development Plan has projected development at a much longer term (100 years), the developments over that time period are not all certain and are subject to significant variation. It was noted in the Port Planning Study that extrapolation beyond 2020 would require making a number of assumptions based on strategic forecasts and the potential for new industries in the region rather than being based on known or likely developments.

4.3 2004 to 2005 - Base case scenario (Bench-mark year) The financial year 2004-2005 has been set as a Base Case year for modelling. This year range provides an environmental or cumulative impact assessment reference point and represents a bench-mark for comparison. It is a starting point from which to consider future developments and potential impacts. The key features describing the port operations for this bench-mark scenario are:

Iron ore

iron ore mined outside the project area with ore transported into the port via rail, for export

iron ore processing and loading is just over 103Mtpa (all attributable to BHPBIO operations)

shipping from Nelson Point and Finucane Island (total of 681 vessels), with ship-loaders operating at each berth

iron ore activities are a 24-hour, 365 days of the year operation

Salt

salt production adjacent to Redbank

salt transported for export to the port via road trains

salt stockpiling occurs at the port prior to ship-loading

ship-loading occurs from the Port Authority’s berth 3 (89 vessels in the year) and approximately 3.6Mtpa Other ores

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 53 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

copper, manganese and chromite are mined outside the bounds of the project area with ore transported into the port via road train (triples) for export

copper, manganese and chromite stored (both housed and open stockpiles) in close proximity to PHPA’s berth 1

shipping approximately 68,000 tonnes of copper from the Port Authority’s berth 1

shipping approximately 705,000 tonnes of manganese from the Port Authority’s berth 1

shipping approximately 258,000 tonnes of chromite from the Port Authority’s berth 1

shipping approximately 8,900 tonnes of feldspar from the Port Authority’s berth 1

cumulative export tonnages account for Unimin, Newcrest and Consolidated Minerals Bulk fuel, bitumen and chemical

cumulative company import of approximately 393,500 tonnes of fuel and bitumen via berth 3

approximately 95,500 tonnes of sulphuric acid imported

approximately 40 fuel tanker movements (including bitumen and acid storage tanks) associated with the imports Livestock

cumulative export of 5,477 tonnes of live cattle (holding yards are located at Boodarie Industrial Estate) Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP)

two WWTP’s (located in Port Hedland and South Hedland) operational with a combined maximum capacity of 24,000kg treatment per day

operating at 50–70% capacity Landfill

Class 2 inert landfill, approximately 67,000 tonnes of waste stored at the South Hedland site Oil Energy Corporation

Incineration of liquid and intractable waste in rotary furnace at Wedgefield. Port Hedland International Airport

8,376 aircraft movements annually (excluding heliport movements)

Figure 4-1 represents the infrastructure footprint of the Port Hedland port operations for the base- case scenario.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 54 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability ----

Or~ lilt ......

Sil!ldM I<,...,. ....l Port Hedland Scenario 1 Figure 4-1 .:eu..,...,. TtQC•·'""w•.....,..,.. eoo, Cumula- · tive Assessm ent I (2004 - 2005) Port All 0811;$8<&$00 F•• 0811~~$ _SIM __,..,._ Port Study =-:;::J 1 Infrastructure I""--:.n

Figure 4-1 Infrastructure footprint – Base Case 2004-2005

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 55 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

4.4 2010 - Short-term future scenario The first future scenario is forecast to represent a near future representation of the port operations. This scenario accounts for:

Iron ore

iron ore mined outside the project area with ore transported into the port via the rail (existing and new rail connections), for export

an increase in iron ore processing, loading and exports (attributable to an increase in the BHPBIO operations and the introduction of exports by FMG and various smaller operators

an increase in shipping, including export through additional berths in line with Port Planning Study, including infrastructure at Utah Point and Anderson Point

port is a 24-hour, 365 days of the year operation

Salt

salt production remains consistent and unchanged from base-case scenario

associated road train (triples) movements remain consistent

Other ores

copper, feldspar, manganese and chromite mined outside the bounds of the project area with ore transported into the port via road train (triples), for export

increase in shipping and exported tonnages (accounting for Newcrest, Consolidated Minerals, Birla)

feldspar exports have ceased

relocation of uncovered material stockpiles away from the base-case scenario location to new infrastructure at Utah Point

increase in road train (triples) movements associated with ore going into Port Hedland and Utah Point

Bulk fuel and chemical

cumulative import of fuel and chemical increases per annum

import via berth 3 continues

Livestock

cumulative export tonnage remains steady

truck movements are from the stockyards at the Boodarie Industrial Estate into Port Hedland on a “campaign” basis

Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 56 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Continued operation of the two WWTP’s with a combined maximum capacity of 24,000kg treatment per day (Port Hedland and South Hedland)

operating at an increased capacity due to an increase in population

Landfill

Class 2 inert landfill at South Headland continue to operate

increased tonnage of waste stored at the site corresponding to increase in population

Oil Energy Corporation

incineration of liquid and intractable waste in rotary furnace at Wedgefield continues with some increase proportional to population increase

Port Hedland International Airport

aircraft movements increase annually while exports continue to grow Figure 4-2 represents the infrastructure footprint of the Port Hedland port operations for the 2010 scenario.

4.5 2015 to 2020 - Long-term (mid-future) scenario The second future scenario is forecast to represent a longer term future representation of the Port operations. This scenario will account for: Iron ore

iron ore mined outside the project area with ore transported into the Port of Port Hedland via the rail, for export

an increase in iron ore processing, loading and exports (attributable to a further increase in the BHPBIO operations, and increase in the FMG operations, and further exports from a number of smaller operators)

an increase in shipping, including additional berths in line with Port Planning Study (Port Hedland, Utah Point, Anderson Point)

it is a 24-hour, 365 days of the year operation

Salt

salt production remains consistent and unchanged from base-case scenario

associated road train (triples) movements continue going into the port

Other ores

copper, manganese and chromite are mined outside the bounds of the project area with ore transported into the Port of Port Hedland via road train (triples), for export

increase in export tonnages

all ore (un-bagged) exported through Utah Point

cumulative tonnages account for Newcrest, Consolidated Minerals, and Birla

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 57 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Bulk fuel and chemical

cumulative import of fuel and chemical increases per annum

import via berth 3 continues

Livestock

cumulative export of 5,477 tonnes remains steady Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP)

two WWTP’s continue to e operational with a combined maximum capacity of 24,000kg treatment per day

operating at an increased capacity due to increase in population

Landfill

Class 2 inert landfill at South Hedland continues to operate

increased tonnage of waste stored at the site corresponding to increases in population Oil Energy Corporation

Incineration of liquid and intractable waste in rotary furnace increases at Wedgefield Port Hedland International Airport

aircraft movements increase annually while exports continue to grow

larger air craft an option Figure 4-3 represents the infrastructure footprint of the Port Hedland port operations for the 2015- 2020 scenario.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 58 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability ----

Smith

\\~...... T...... Port""'"' H e dland I Scena rio 2 Fi gure 4-2 ~..:.:!:.=!. hrflw.Mtn1•eoo • Cumulat ive Assessment 2010 Project e d ... , _SBM Ph· 019l'M4500 fl•· ot92MUIS:S _ --- I Port Study Po rt Infrastructure IO.OHoOO:r--

Figure 4-2 Infrastructure footprint – Scenario 2010 (estimated at 1 March 2007)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 59 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Slllll

\\ ~~\(i~l ' '

~· ~No ...,• .,...... Port""'"' Hedland Scenario 3 Figure 4-3 ,.,_,..r_,.,..,.,....,..,...,., Cumulative Assessment I f'tl ott:M•SOO h• Olt:tltM~ (2015- 2020) Projected _SKM -Ml ---- IPort Study IPort Infrastructure ~~..

Figure 4-3 Infrastructure footprint – Scenario 2015-2020 (estimated at 1 March 2007)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 60 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

5. Modelling Results and Assessment

This section details the air quality and noise modelling results. Modelled results are discussed in comparison to selected criteria and are defined for specific receptor locations. Modelling results for the future scenarios are also discussed in comparison to the base case scenario.

5.1 Air Quality – Dust

Dust is described and modelled in terms of PM10 and TSP. Modelled results are defined for comparison at five sensitive receptor locations named in Table 5-1 and shown in Figure 5-1.

The Harbour Monitor and Hospital Monitor locations were selected to represent the existing BHPBIO ambient dust monitoring sites and are used in the model validation process. The Pretty Pool location (Primary School) was chosen to represent the eastern end of Port Hedland as this site represents the most sensitive receptor in this immediate area. A receptor was also assigned to Wedgefield because, although this area is classified as a light industrial area, there are residents within this precinct. While the consideration of potential impacts on the community of South Hedland was outside the scope of the study, a sensitive receptor location at South Hedland (High School) was included as a reference point for this area.

Table 5-1 – Sensitive receptor locations for model interpretation

Sensitive Receptor Location Easting Northing Harbour Monitor 664350 7753240 Hospital Monitor 665870 7753420 Pretty Pool (Primary School) 670631 7754008 South Hedland (High School) 666600 7743439 Wedgefield 665526 7747107

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 61 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-1 Locations for model interpretation

The predicted model results from the future scenarios are compared to the base case in terms of the relative change to the cumulative concentrations. No inferences to the potential health impacts are made in this study as the Department of Health are progressing studies that are intended to gain an understanding of the potential health impact to the community arising from exposure to particles in

Port Hedland, and the applicability of the current NEPM particle (PM10) standard to the Port Hedland region. In the absence of alternative criteria, the modelled results are also compared to the

PM10 ambient criteria.

The criteria for comparing dust concentrations is summarised in Table 5-2.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 62 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Table 5-2 Criteria for Comparison - Dust

Dust parameter Criteria (24-hour) Reference

TSP 150 ug/m3 based on the Kwinana EPP Area C limit to assess potential amenity impacts 3 PM10 50 ug/m based on the NEPM PM10 standard to assess potential health impacts

5.1.1 Predicted Maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations

Comparisons between the predicted PM10 concentrations from the base scenario, 2010 future development scenario, and 2015-2020 future development scenario at the Harbour and Hospital ambient air quality monitors are presented in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3, and summarised in Table 5-3. Additional locations representing “sensitive receptor” locations are also summarised in Table

5-3. Contour plots of the maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations are presented in Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6.

Table 5-3 Comparison of predicted PM10 concentrations in Port Hedland

3 Statistic Maximum 24-hour PM10 Average (μg/m )

Base operation 2010 Future 2015-20 Future 2004/2005 Development Development

Harbour Monitor 147 153 153

Hospital Monitor 128 81 72

Primary School (Pretty Pool) 63 63 63

High School (South Hedland) 63 63 63

Wedgefield 63 67 69

The impact of the increased tonnage through the port area of Port Hedland is an increase in the maximum PM10 concentration at the Harbour monitoring site for both the 2010 and the 2015-2020 future development scenario. The remaining statistics however show that it is predicted that there

will be a reduction in ground level PM10 concentrations.

A decrease at the Hospital monitoring site is predicted for both future development scenarios. The

Wedgefield modelled receptor location shows a relatively small increase in PM10 concentrations for

the two future scenarios. There is no predicted change to the maximum PM10 concentrations at the Primary School and High School sensitive receptor locations.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 63 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The reason for the decrease between the existing (2004-2005) operations and the 2010 future development at the Harbour (apart from the maximum ground level concentration) and Hospital monitor locations is considered to be due to a combination of factors including:

BHPBIO decommissioning its old Goldsworthy stockyard facilities on Finucane Island and replacing it with new stockyard facilities; the ceasing of all crushing and screening operations at the BHPBIO Nelson Point operations; the decommissioning of certain stackers/reclaimers and transfer stations at Nelson Point (BHPBIO 2006); and the PHPA relocating high dust emitting operations away from Berth 1 to the proposed Utah Point operations. 3 When compared to ambient criteria, (Section 2.2.3), the PM10 criterion of 50 μg/m (24 hr average) is not achieved in the base case or future scenarios.

160

140

Existing (2004/2005) 120 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 100

60 Concentration (ug/m

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile Average

Figure 5-2 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Harbour air quality monitoring site

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 64 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

160

140

Existing (2004/2005) 120 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 100

60 Concentration (ug/m

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile Average

Figure 5-3 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Hospital air quality monitoring site

Figure 5-4 Base Case – Modelled maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 65 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-5 2010– Predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations

Figure 5-6 2015-2020 Scenario – Predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 66 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

5.1.2 Predicted Maximum 24 hour TSP concentrations Comparisons between the predicted TSP concentrations from the base case scenario, and the 2010 and 2015-2020 future development scenarios at the Harbour and Hospital ambient air quality monitors are presented in Figure 5-7and Figure 5-8, and summarised in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Comparison of predicted TSP concentrations in Port Hedland

Maximum 24-hour TSP Average (μg/m3) Statistic Base operation 2010 Future 2015-2020 Future 2004/2005 Development Development Harbour Monitor 304 215 217 Hospital Monitor 334 215 184 Primary School (Pretty Pool) 165 165 165 High School (South Hedland) 164 164 164 Wedgefield 164 164 164

The impact of the increased tonnage through the port of Port Hedland is an initial decrease in the maximum TSP concentration at the Harbour monitoring site for the 2010 future development scenario. There is however a small increase then in the 2015-2020 future development scenario.

A decrease at the Hospital monitoring site is predicted for both future development scenarios.

The remaining modelled receptor locations show no change in the TSP concentrations for the two future scenarios. The primary reason for this is that there is a high background concentration which has the potential to override any changes in the ground level concentrations that result from increased tonnage through the region.

Similar to the PM10 results, the contributing factors to the decrease between the existing (2004- 2005) operations and the 2010 future development at the Harbour and Hospital monitor locations is considered to be due to a combination of factors including:

BHPBIO decommissioning its old Goldsworthy stockyard facilities on Finucane Island and replacing it with new stockyard facilities; ceasing of all crushing and screening operations at the BHPBIO Nelson Point operations; the decommissioning of certain stackers/reclaimers and transfer stations at Nelson Point (BHPBIO 2006); and the Port Hedland Port Authority relocating high dust emitting operations away from Berth 1 to the proposed Utah Point operations. When compared to ambient criteria, (Section 2.2.3), the TSP criterion of 150 μg/m3 (24 hr average) is not achieved in the base case or future scenarios.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 67 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

400

350

Existing (2004/2005) 300 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 250

200

150 Concentration (ug/m

100

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile 70 Percentile Average

Figure 5-7 Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Harbour air quality monitoring site

400

350

Existing (2004/2005) 300 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 250

200

150 Concentration (ug/m

100

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile 70 Percentile Average

Figure 5-8 Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Hospital air quality monitoring site

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 68 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

5.1.3 Estimated Metal Constituent of Dust Metal concentrates (chromium and manganese) are stored and exported through the Port Hedland port.

Heavy metals form part of the air toxics group of pollutants, having the potential to harm human health and the environment. It was beyond the scope of this study to assess the likely levels of heavy metals within the dust in Port Hedland. However this is an issue of interest and requires further consideration beyond this study.

Metals are emitted into the atmosphere through both natural and anthropogenic processes. The processing of minerals, incineration of metallic objects, combustion of fuel containing metal additives and the wear of motor vehicle tyres and brakes result in the emission of metals with particulate matter (EA 2002). Natural processes causing metal emissions include weathering of rocks and wind blown dust. When inhaled, metals attached to particulate matter may deposit deep within the lungs. Epidemiological studies have established relationships between inhaled particulate matter and morbidity and mortality, including research centred in Western Australia (DoE 2003).

Heavy metals can be associated with both fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10) particulate matter. Fine particulate matter is associated with combustion activities, while coarse particulate emissions generally arise from dust. Metals such as iron (Fe), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), barium (Ba), gallium (Ga), caesium (Cs), europium (Eu), tungsten (W) and gold (Au) exist in both coarse and fine fractions in ambient air. Calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg), scandium (Sc), lanthanum (La), hafnium (Hf) and thorium (Th) exist predominantly in the coarse fraction. Metals such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), gallium (Ga), molybdenum (Mo), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), selenium (Se), tungsten (W) and zinc (Zn) enrich the fine fraction of particulate matter. (EA 2002).

In Australia, the National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air) Measure (NEPM) specifies an ambient standard (based on the protection of human health) for one heavy metal, being lead. For other heavy metals, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines (WHO 2000) provides guidelines for the metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium (VI), lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum and vanadium. The guideline levels for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effect are provided in Table 5-5.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 69 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Table 5-5 Ambient air quality guideline criteria for heavy metals

Metal Guideline value Averaging Time Reference Arsenic 1.5 x 10-3 Unit risk factor WHO Cadmium 0.005μg/m3 Annual average WHO Chromium(VI) 4 x 10−2 Unit risk factor WHO Lead 0.50 μg/m3 Annual average NEPM Manganese 0.15 μg/m3 Annual average WHO Mercury 1 μg/m3 Annual average WHO Nickel 4 x 10-4 Unit risk factor WHO Vanadium 1 μg/m-3 24-hour average WHO Note * Unit risk factor - Cancer risk estimates for lifetime exposure to a concentration of 1 μg/m3

The major constituent of the anthropogenic dust in the port area of Port Hedland is expected to be iron ore, with small quantities of other mineral ores. The potential environmental impacts from iron ore processing and handling activities are related to the potential bioaccumulation of trace metals through the trophic chain and to toxicological effects in aquatic organisms. The main human health effect of the iron ore dust is expected to be limited to respiratory effects.

Other major metal ores exported through Port Hedland are manganese ore (pyrolusite) and chromium ore (chromite). Typically the manganese ore consists of a minimum 48% manganese, and the chromium ore consists of a minimum 42% chromium.

The percentage contribution of these ores to the total atmospheric dust concentration in the port area varies greatly and is dependent on many of factors. Modelling predictions from the base case scenario at the Harbour and Hospital monitoring sites indicates that the contribution to the predicted PM10 concentration (from ore handling operations exported through Berth 1) can range between 0 to 94.2% and 0 to 68.1% respectively. This variation is influenced largely by source of emission and distance from receptor. Given the variation in dust concentrations and the range in percentage contribution of the ores to the particle concentration, there is a low confidence placed in subsequent estimations, however given the elevated concentrations and the potential for dust levels to increases, there are grounds for further investigation. At the time of this study, no data on the regular ambient sampling of metals in dust were available for review.

Exposure to high levels of manganese for a long time may cause adverse effects on respiratory or nervous system. Breathing air containing 10 - 50 times of higher level of manganese than the normal average concentration may have some adverse effects on the protective functions in the lungs.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 70 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Chromium (III) compounds (Cr2O3 - chromite) are less toxic than chromium (VI) compound, and not considered to be carcinogenic. Chromium (III) compounds are not irritating or corrosive in normal conditions. However, in high level it may have some toxic effects. People allergic to chromium may have respiratory problems after having exposure in air containing high level of chromium. Chromium (III) has moderate acute toxicity to aquatic life.

An assessment of the environmental and health impact of the dust’s chemical constituents was outside the scope of this assessment. It is recommended that an in-depth study be undertaken to assess the potential health and environmental impacts of the metal constituents of atmospheric and deposited dust with the port area. Regular analysis of metals in the dust at Port Hedland should be undertaken to establish whether emission estimates are accurate, and to determine whether additional monitoring and management actions are required.

5.2 Air Quality – Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur This section describes the preliminary air quality emission estimation from mobile sources, that is, heavy haulage vehicles, aircraft and shipping. Estimates are defined for comparison to the broader Pilbara region estimate, as well as being compared as a relative change to the base-case scenario. The assessments in described in detail in Appendix A.2 and Appendix A.3, with the key findings summarised below.

Mobile emission sources are predicted to increase substantially in future years, predominantly due to trucks hauling ores to port for export, and from shipping associated with the export and import of commodities through the port.

Heavy haulage vehicles show a significant increase in emissions of oxides of nitrogen in the future, almost doubling every 5-year period.

Preliminary work shows commercial shipping emissions to significantly increase in future scenarios with the increase in oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur being of greatest concern.

The addition of future emissions sources within the Port Hedland regions would necessitate the

further consideration of these pollutants, including PM2.5.

5.3 Noise This section details the noise modelling results. Modelled noise results are presented for industrial sources and traffic, and their respective impacts on the Port Hedland and Wedgefield communities are discussed. The modelled results are also compared as a relative change to the base-case scenario. The contribution of aircraft noise was considered to be less significant. Further details are contained in Appendix C.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 71 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

5.3.1 Traffic Noise in Port Hedland

Generally, most Australian road authorities set a road traffic noise criterion of 63dB LA10. Traffic noise is presented in this study in terms of the LA10(24hr) noise descriptor. The traffic volume data made available to this study is most conducive to accurate noise prediction with the LA10(24hr) descriptor. The supplied traffic data only indicates the total traffic volumes in a day (AADT), as well as peak hour intersection movements for AM and PM periods. Comparison of modelled results is made to the WA Main Roads criteria of 63dB(A) LA10(18hr). While not a direct comparison,

LA10,(24hr) values are generally 1dB(A) below LA10(18hr) values for traffic noise.

Figure 5-9 shows the predicted noise levels for the base case scenario. The traffic noise contour maps indicate that the 63dB(A) LA10(18hr) criterion is likely to be satisfied for all scenarios. Traffic noise levels can be seen to be above 63dB(A) only immediately adjacent to Port Hedland Road and Finucane Road.

Traffic noise is predicted to increase by up to 1dB in residential built-up areas by 2010 (Figure 5-10) and by up to 3dB for the 2015 – 2020 scenario (Figure 5-11).

Figure 5-9 Traffic Noise – Base Case (2004-2005)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 72 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-10 Traffic Noise - Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2010

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 73 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-11 Traffic Noise - Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2015-2020 The highest increases in noise are to the south west of the Port Hedland town for both future development scenrios. This area is near to those locations experiencing the greatest increases in traffic, that is around Finucane Road, across the port to the south west. The increased traffic noise at Port Hedland is primarily due to noise from increased truck movements on Finucane Road.

All noise modelling figures are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.2 Industrial Noise and Port Hedland Industrial activity is the main source of noise in Port Hedland. In general the likely noise levels of concern in Port Hedland occur at night due to nearby industrial plants operating 24 hours a day.

Noise contour maps for all three scenarios indicate that most of the Port Hedland township exceeds the industrial noise criteria. The base case scenario is shown in Figure 5-12. Areas close to the operations at Nelson Point are close to 20dB(A) over the criteria (Appendix C).

Noise due to industrial activity is predicted to increase by up to 1dB by 2010 (Figure 5-13) and by up to 2dB for the 2015–2020 scenario (Figure 5-14) in residential built-up areas (Appendix C).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 74 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

These increases may not be noticeable and almost meet the EPA guidelines for ‘no net increase in noise’ applied to the local industry. In the application of this ‘no net increase’ policy, operators are required to install noise mitigation measures to existing premises prior to commissioning new plant.

Figure 5-12 Industrial Noise Base Case Scenario

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 75 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 1 - 2010

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure 5-13 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 76 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2 - 2015

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure 5-14 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario Noise contour maps in Appendix C show noise from current and future industrial areas. They show a progressive increase in the number of noise sources and the level of noise emissions in the future. However, it is the existing local industry that will continue to dominate the local noise environment in the future in the Port Hedland town area.

5.3.3 Traffic Noise and Wedgefield Traffic on the Great Northern Highway is predicted to be the dominant noise source in Wedgefield for all scenarios. Generally, a road traffic noise criterion is set at 63dB LA10 by most road authorities. The traffic noise contour maps indicate that this criterion will be satisfied for all scenarios (Appendix C). The modelled results for the base case are shown in Figure 5-15.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 77 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-15 Traffic Noise Base Case Scenario (Wedgefield)

Traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by up to 4dB in Wedgefield by 2010 (Figure 5-16) and by up to 6dB for the 2015–2020 scenario (Figure 5-17). There are some residences within Wedgefield and the significance of the noise increases on these residences will be influenced by the actual building construction. These details were not available to the study.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 78 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-16 Traffic Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario (Wedgefield)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 79 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-17 Traffic Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario (Wedgefield)

5.3.4 Industrial Noise and Wedgefield Existing industrial noise in Wedgefield are considered to be low, and are below 36dB(A). Figure 5-18 shows the modelled noise levels for the base case scenario. The future modelled scenarios, while showing significant increases in noise levels, do not predict levels to be above 36 dB(A) (Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20).

With the construction and future operation of further developments in the area, the noise model predicts Wedgefield will experience a significant increase in noise levels. These modelled levels are, however, significantly less than the background (existing) noise levels experienced in the broader study area, for all scenarios.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 80 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-18 Industrial Noise Base Case Scenario (Wedgefield)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 81 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-19 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2010 Scenario (Wedgefield)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 82 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Figure 5-20 Industrial Noise Change from Base Case to 2015-2020 Scenario (Wedgefield) In general the critical noise criterion in Wedgefield occurs at night because the industrial plants affecting Wedgefield run 24 hours a day. As such, when considering the influencing factor, the worst case noise criterion is likely to be between 40dB and 45dB LA10. Noise contour maps for all three scenarios indicate that noise at Wedgefield satisfies this criterion.

5.3.5 Aircraft Noise (including heliport activity) As aircraft are not a constant or stationary noise source it is not included in the industrial noise modelling. A qualitative assessment of aircraft noise has been undertaken instead.

Aircraft noise is generated mainly from the Port Hedland International Airport at Redbank and the Heliport at the Port Hedland Port Authority port area. The limiting noise criterion for aircraft is

typically the LAmax. This noise descriptor considers the maximum noise event in any period. It does not, therefore, consider the number or duration of noise events in a period.

As a result the LAmax for aircraft pass by, or take off and landing, will not increase due to increased air traffic. An increase in this parameter will only occur if the type of aircraft is changed to a

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 83 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

noisier model. An increase in aircraft size from Boeing 717 to Boeing 737 is proposed as part of the 2015–2020 scenario to accommodate increased passenger numbers. No change in helicopter type is expected.

Therefore, LAmax noise levels due to the Port Hedland International Airport may increase if the proposed larger aircraft are noisier than the existing models. If the LAmax produced by aircraft flyovers is high enough then the potential for sleep disturbance exists. This potential for sleep disturbance should be assessed and will require measurement of the maximum noise level of an aircraft, determination of flight path and the typical construction of nearby noise sensitive buildings.

Increased air movements are expected as a result of increased passenger numbers at the airport. Also, increased helicopter movements are expected as a result of increased marine pilot transport to and from the heliport, which is due to increased port throughput

5.4 Recognised Constraints Arising from the Modelling With any modelling there is uncertainty in the predictions due to the assumptions made by the model and uncertainties in the input data.

Given the nature of this cumulative assessment, and that field verification or monitoring has not been included in this scope of work, there is some uncertainty in the quantitative analysis for both the air and noise assessments. Greater confidence exists in the comparative assessment of the future scenarios to the base-case scenario.

For the air quality assessment it is considered that the greatest cause of uncertainty is in the emission estimates. The estimates are considered to be at best within a factor of two and possibly slightly conservative. This uncertainty should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results.

With respect to noise modelling, given that existing industry dominates the local noise environment there is reasonable confidence in the predicted noise levels. The noise model used in the base-case scenario has been validated for the major industries in previous studies, but not as part of, or for this overall study. The results are not expected to deviate by more than 5dB(A) and it is more likely they are +/- 3dB(A).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 84 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

6. Land Use Planning and Future Impact Management

This section provides an overview of the land use planning tools and mechanisms that are either in place or under review, and are relevant to the Port Hedland region. It also places in context the cumulative air and noise modelling results, and highlights potential avenues for the further consideration of the study results.

6.1 Current land use controls There is a range of land tenure arrangements in the Port Hedland area, with much of the region covered by pastoral leases. Areas not covered by leases, National Parks, Reserves, State Agreements and freehold ownership are Unallocated Crown Land (UCL). In the Port Hedland area, this includes land for urban expansion at Pretty Pool, Wedgefield and South Hedland. Competing uses for UCL include industry expansion, town expansion, environmental protection, recreation and tourism, and heritage.

6.1.1 Town Planning Scheme The Town of Port Hedland controls the use and development of land through the Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No. 5 gazetted in 2001. The Scheme zones and reserves land for a variety of uses and controls elements of development, such as building size, car parking and open space provision. The development of land within the Port Hedland District requires Council planning approval.

The current TPS No. 5 has zoned the ‘core’ area relevant to this study as mainly ‘strategic industry’ and ‘industry’, with some ‘residential’, ‘commercial’ and ‘parks and recreation’. Table 6-1 shows the area allocated to each zone in the different parts of the Port Hedland study area. TPS No 5 also lists 192 additional uses of Caretakers Dwellings in Wedgefield.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 85 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Table 6-1 Land-use zones and total areas (hectares)

West End Cooke Point and Designated land use and Pretty Wedgefield Redbank Cemetery Pool Beach

Residential 31.2 91.2 0 23.3

Industrial 382.0 0 0

Public facilities 18.1 5.7 131.2 0 Utilities and 1.7 28.6 23.3 communications Recreation and open 4.7 70.6 0 0 space Commercial 11.7 0.4 10.9 28.8 Hotel and short stay 3.7 3.1 0 accommodation

Vacant 36 36.3 24.3 12.5

6.1.2 Land Use Master Plan The process for developing a Land Use Master Plan has been initiated by the Town of Port Hedland. The Master Plan focuses on land use and development to guide the growth and development of Port Hedland through the next 20–25 years. A Land Use Master Plan Steering Group has been established to identify critical issues to be addressed by the Master Plan. The Steering Group has identified ten key land use issues that need to be addressed by the Master Plan. A series of workshops to review constraints and identify options for each issue have been held and the findings and planning options summarized in Discussion Papers. These options were consulted on in a community-wide summit on 3 December 2006. The key outputs from this forum will be used to prepare two or three alternative overall plans that will be reviewed in a second Community Summit in early 2007. Input from the second forum will be used to develop a Draft Land Use Master Plan, which the community will have a further opportunity to review, prior to its formal submission to Council for adoption. The resulting Land Use Master Plan will be a key input into a Local Planning Strategy for the Town of Port Hedland, which in turn will inform development of the Town's TPS No.6.

6.1.3 Enquiry by Design The Enquiry by Design was an interactive planning process undertaken by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure in late 2004. The Port Hedland community worked with technical specialists to identify issues and develop plans for the future growth and development of the Town during two workshops. An Overall Plan was developed along with a West End Plan (Town Centre),

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 86 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

South Hedland Plan, Cooke Point and Pretty Pool Plan and Wedgefield Plan. A report detailing the outputs of the workshops, recommendations and the revised plans were presented to the Town of Port Hedland, the Pilbara Development Commission, the State Government and other relevant stakeholder groups.

6.1.4 State Planning Policies The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has a number of State Planning Policies (SPPs), formerly Statement of Planning Policies, that serve to guide decision-making on land use and development in Western Australia. The WAPC and local governments must have 'due regard' to the provisions of SPPs when preparing or amending TPSs and when making decisions on planning matters. The State Administrative Tribunal is also required to take account of SPPs when determining appeals.

SPPs relevant to the study area include State Industrial Buffers, State Coastal Planning Policy and Residential Design Codes.

SPP 4.1 State Industrial Buffer (1997) seeks to provide a consistent statewide approach for the protection and long-term security of industrial zones, transport terminals (including ports) other utilities and special uses. It also provides for the safety and amenity of surrounding land uses while having regard to the rights of landowners who may be affected by residual emissions and risk. The policy establishes objectives and principles and how the principles should be applied to define and secure buffer areas and who should pay for them. The SPP has been revised and a draft SPP was released in 2004. The draft SPP (2004) is based on an assumption that routine industrial emissions and risk factors are identified during planning and environmental assessment processes and managed in accordance with licence conditions or statutory environmental conditions. Where licence and statutory environmental conditions are not applicable, high standards of environmental management are expected to be adopted by industry and infrastructure providers.

SPP No 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy (2003) addresses land use planning and development issues specifically as they relate to the protection and management of the coast. The SPP requires strategic plans to guide local planning, development setbacks for protection against coastal processes such as erosion and storms, and the provision of coastal foreshore reserves. It is proposed that the SPP be amended.

SPP No 3.1 Residential Design Codes (2002) provides for the control, through local government, of residential development throughout Western Australia. The Codes are intended to cover all requirements for planning control purposes and to minimise the need for councils to introduce separate planning policies or variations to these matters. The Codes do not address the physical construction requirements or the internal arrangements of buildings.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 87 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Development Control Policies

WAPC has a range of Development Control (DC) Policies that serve as operational guidelines for the development of land.

DC 4.1 Industrial Subdivision (1998) provides guidance on the matters considered by the WAPC when determining applications for industrial subdivision throughout the State. These include such matters as the design and shape of industrial lots, road layout, servicing and open space requirements.

DC 4.2 Planning for Hazards and Safety (1991) seeks to ensure that the planning process addresses exposure of the public to risk from man-made and natural events. The risk implications of a proposed development should be taken account of and weighed against factors which need to be considered in land use planning.

DC 6.1 Country Coastal Planning Policy (1989) is designed to assist local government, developers and planning consultants by providing a set of general guidelines to enable a uniform approach to land use planning, development and subdivision of coastal areas of the State, outside the Perth metropolitan region. The policy is intended primarily to deal with new development and subdivision and may not always be applicable to areas previously developed and subdivided.

DC 2.2 Residential Subdivision (2003) establishes the WAPC’s position regarding residential subdivision. There are also a range of other DC policies related to residential subdivision including: DC 1.1 Subdivision of Land - General Principles (2004); DC 1.3 Strata Titles (2003); DC 2.3 Public Open Space in Residential Areas (2002); DC 2.4 School Sites (1998); and DC 2.6 Residential Road Planning (1998).

6.1.5 Other guidelines The EPA’s Guidance Statement No. 3 Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses (2005) provides guidance on generic separation distances between industrial and sensitive land uses to avoid conflicts between these land uses. It takes into account protection of the environment with a focus on protecting sensitive land uses from unacceptable impacts on amenity that may result from industrial activities, emissions and infrastructure.

6.1.6 State Agreements State Agreements are contracts between the State and major project developers that establish a framework of rights and obligations to facilitate the development of resources and/or downstream processing projects in Western Australia. The Agreements operate and take effect despite any other Act or law, and therefore have primacy.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 88 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Resource projects operating under the provisions of State Agreements in the study area include:

Iron Ore (FMG Chichester Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2006 Iron Ore (Goldsworthy-Nimingarra) Agreement Act 1972 Iron Ore (Hope Downs) Agreement Act 1992 Iron Ore (McCamey’s Monster) Agreement Authorization Act 1972 Iron Ore (Marillana Creek) Agreement Act 1991 Iron Ore (Mount Goldsworthy) Agreement Act 1964 Iron Ore (Mount Newman) Agreement Act 1964 Iron Ore Beneficiation (BHP) Agreement Act 1996 Iron Ore Direct Reduced Iron (BHP) Agreement Act 1996 Iron Ore (Yandicoogina) Agreement Act 1996

6.2 Planning Challenges Air quality (dust) and noise criteria are already exceeded in the project area. While some improvement in dust levels is predicted in the near future scenario, the potential increase in dust levels further in time is possible. The area receiving the highest concentrations of dust is located immediately adjacent to the port operations (west end of Port Hedland town area).

The Department of Health are progressing studies to identify any potential health impact to the community arising from exposure to particles in this environment. As an interim approach, and based on the current understanding of the potential health impact associated with exposure to particles in general, it is recommended that planning strategies that reduce the likelihood of placing people in this west end location for any extended period of time are pursued or supported.

Similarly for noise, future development will bring about an increase in overall noise levels although the actual increase is unlikely to be distinguishable over the already high noise levels. The two areas of most concern are those located immediately adjacent to the port operations (west end of Port Hedland town area), and Wedgefield. Elevated noise levels, particularly those events or activities leading to sleep disturbance of the community may also be addressed through planning and engineering strategies.

The presence or continuation of these elevated levels of environmental impact in the west end of the Port Hedland Town area presents both planning and management challenges with strong community support being expressed through the Land Use Master Plan process (LUMP) for this area to be “revitalised” into a vibrant town centre, attracting people to both recreate and live there.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 89 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

A large number of significant projects are being progressed in the Port Hedland region. These are being subject to detailed environmental consideration for their proposed operations and development in the immediate future. The “footprint” of development and the capacity or extent of development however is rapidly changing. There is significant uncertainty as to whether the contextual setting within which projects are being assessed is reflective of actual future development and the potential cumulative impacts in the longer term.

While this study has investigated the key cumulative environmental impacts from potential future development, it is beyond the scope of this study to investigate the cumulative impact of these developments on the actual infrastructure and services in Port Hedland. Of particular concern is the potential impact that may be placed on the current road network, both in terms of potential traffic volume and traffic mix. It has been recommended in other studies and forums that upgrades to the road network in and around Port Hedland are required. Currently there is only one road link into the town area to accommodate both passenger vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles (road trains). In some parts, this road link (Wilson Street) remains a single carriageway. The need for improvement to the Great Northern Highway and Port Hedland Road has also been suggested. There is a need for both a detailed traffic study and risk analysis to be pursued to investigate this issue further.

Although a great number of studies and information has become available, the sudden expansion in recent years and this continued growth creates a situation of uncertainty about impacts, and further studies are required. These studies need to focus on better understanding the actual mix of pollutants within the dust monitored in Port Hedland, understanding the potential impacts that may be presented by the increase in road traffic (air, noise, risk), and the potential impacts associated with the ongoing co-location of “temporary” accommodation in industrial locations. Those operators in Port Hedland contributing to the significant impacts of air quality and noise would benefit from adopting a cooperative approach to monitoring the current impacts and managing these issues in future.

An agreed framework for future development of the Port Hedland area is needed. Its focus needs to be on high level strategic planning with clear objectives for future land development across Port Hedland, as well as for the management and monitoring of cumulative environmental impacts arising from a combination of port operations and associated activities. The planning should be based on managing impacts from:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 90 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

In order to be effective, the development framework needs to be supported by an environmental and community health policy that provides clarity on the acceptable environmental standards to be achieved in the area, both now and into future. This is particularly important given that both noise and dust levels are higher than this study’s assessment criteria, and that additional emission sources are planned in the future. It is also important for placing in context the likely cumulative impacts emerging in future, such as particles 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. To be effective, such a policy needs to have the support of the state government, industry and local community.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 91 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 92 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study is an assessment of the potential cumulative impact arising from the likely future development of the port and associated activities. The cumulative impact assessment is designed to consider the extent to which future proposals have the potential to collectively impact on the community in Port Hedland. Individually the emission contribution from each proposal may be considered acceptable, and in some circumstances insignificant, however the cumulative impact of all these sources may be significant or unacceptable. This is of particular importance where existing emissions or impacts are already at or above accepted levels.

7.1 Air Quality

The air quality assessment modelled the potential change in dust emissions (PM10 and TSP) across

Port Hedland. Maximum 24-hour PM10 and TSP concentrations results were investigated at the Port Hedland “Harbour” and “Hospital” dust monitoring locations, along with three other nominated sensitive receptors in the study area. These maximum concentrations of dust were compared to relevant ambient criteria. The relative change in these predicted concentrations was also compared to the base-case scenario. The chemical composition of the dust in Port Hedland and its potential impact on the environment and the community was not included in the scope of this study, but preliminary comments are presented. An emission inventory of the main mobile emission sources was completed to gain an understanding of the potential change in diffuse emission sources in the study area. Preliminary screening level modelling was undertaken of the estimated shipping emissions to assess whether future developments would need to include consideration of this issue as part any environmental impact assessment process.

Key findings and recommendations from the air quality assessment are:

Dust

Base-case dust concentrations in Port Hedland are above the NEPM PM10 criteria and the TSP

assessment criteria set for this study. The applicability of the PM10 NEPM criteria to the Port Hedland region is currently being investigated by the Department of Health.

2004-2005 concentrations but will remain above the NEPM PM10 criteria.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 93 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The maximum PM10 and TSP concentrations at the Hospital monitoring site are predicted to decrease for both the 2010 and 2015-2020 future development scenarios.

The Wedgefield modelled receptor location shows a relatively small increase in PM10 concentrations for the two future scenarios, but no change in the modelled TSP concentrations.

Modelled concentrations remain above the NEPM PM10 criteria.

There is no predicted change to the maximum PM10 and TSP concentrations at the Pretty Pool Primary School and South Hedland Senior High School receptors. The primary reason for this is that there is a high background concentration which has the potential to override any changes in the ground level concentrations that result from increased tonnage through the region. The future development scenarios used in this assessment predict a general improvement in dust concentrations at the Hospital monitoring site. The main factors influencing predicted reductions in dust concentrations are the: Changes and improvements to BHPBIO’s operations detailed in their dust management program; Ceasing the open bulk storage of manganese (Consolidated Minerals) in the vicinity of Berth 1 (Nelson Point); and Relocating the ship-loading of open-stored manganese ore to the proposed public berths at Utah Point.

Mobile emission sources

Mobile emission sources are predicted to increase substantially in future years. The emissions inventory for the main mobile emission sources (heavy duty vehicles (diesel), aircraft and ships) shows that the Port Hedland area is a significant contributor of emissions when compared to the broader Pilbara region, with the greatest contribution of emissions coming from ships. Heavy-duty vehicles (diesel) Heavy-duty vehicles (diesel) are estimated to contribute the equivalent of 10% of oxides of

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 94 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Heavy duty vehicle emissions (road haulage) show a significant increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides in the future scenarios with the predicted emissions almost doubling every five

years. The rate of increase is VOCs and PM10 is evident but not as significant as the increase for nitrogen oxides. Aircraft The Port Hedland airport is one of two major airports in the Pilbara region, and contributes a comparative 65% of the total sulphur dioxide emission from aircraft in the Pilbara. Emission estimates have not taken into account an increase in helicopter use for the future development scenarios in Port Hedland. Commercial shipping Commercial shipping emissions are predicted to increase significantly in the future, with emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide of greatest concern. The increase is estimated to double over the study timeframe. The use of auxillary engines while ships are at berth is a significant contributing source of emissions, so new berth proposals providing shore power should be encouraged. Other boating activities, such as recreational boating, fishing vessels and tugs have not been included in the estimates. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur should be undertaken in the event that additional increases in shipping and heavy haulage are proposed beyond those identified in the 2015-2020 future scenario. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur should be undertaken in the event that an industrial emission source is proposed in the Port Hedland area, including the Boodarie industrial estate. The modelling of heavy metal concentrations in dust was not a component of this study. Sufficient baseline monitoring data for determining or modelling heavy metal concentration was not available during the study. A preliminary estimate of heavy metal constituents indicates that further investigation is warranted. Subject to the findings of the DoH studies, completion of a screening level assessment based on historic dust samples is recommended for further investigation. An assessment of the extent to which these metals may have been dispersed through the area should be investigated further with consideration given to the use of hyperspectral analysis.

Odour

Odour was not identified as a significant cumulative issue in the project area under existing and future development scenarios. Activities associated with waste management handling, treatment and disposal were identified as the main odour sources within the project area. This includes odour complaints associated with waste management operations in Wedgefield. The separation distance

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 95 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

between the various odour emitting sources (and management) was considered to be sufficient (an adequate distance apart) so as not to present a cumulative impact.

7.2 Noise The noise assessment included separate consideration of industrial based noise emissions, transport emissions and noise associated with aircraft. The predicted changes to noise levels have been compared to relevant criteria, and as a comparison to the base case scenario. Model predictions are presented as noise contour maps and noise change maps for both the Port Hedland and Wedgefield areas.

Key findings and recommendation from the noise assessment are: Industrial sources

Based on a comparison of noise modelling of road transport and industrial sources, industrial activity is the dominant source of noise in the Port Hedland town area. In general the noise criteria most likely to be of concern occur at night due to nearby industrial plants operating 24 hours a day. Noise modelling indicates noise levels in the Port Hedland town area exceed the assigned noise levels, currently and for both future scenarios. Noise levels in areas in Port Hedland near to industrial activities are 10 – 18dB(A) higher than the assessment criteria. Noise levels due to industrial activities are predicted to increase in residential areas by up to 2dB by 2015–2020 scenario. Noise contour maps for the future scenarios show a progressive increase in the number of noise sources and the level of noise emissions. However it is the existing local industry that will continue to dominate the local noise environment in the future in the Port Hedland town area. Increased levels of industrial noise are of some concern in Wedgefield for both future scenarios. Significant increases in noise levels are expected from the future development and expansion of nearby industrial facilities and associated infrastructure.

Traffic sources

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 96 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Depending on the type of aircraft in use in future, there may be minimal change in aircraft noise impact at the airport and under the landing/takeoff route.

7.3 Risk There are no major hazard facilities currently operating in the project area and no confirmed proposals for facilities classified as such were identified for the 2010 and 2015-2020 timeframes.

There are 28 confirmed premises requiring Dangerous Goods Licences in the project area, varying from chemical storage, waste incineration and fuel handling.

Adequate publicly available information to undertake an informed risk assessment was not accessible during the study. The progression of the public risk component of the study was constrained by this limitation and could not proceed as intended. As agreed with the client risk is not reported and therefore no judgment as to the potential risk posed from operations in Port Hedland is provided. The completion of a risk assessment involving direct access to all relevant sites as well as specific information of operations, layout and configuration, management plans and procedures, requires further consideration. Particular focus on Wedgefield is justified in the first instance.

7.4 Light Light overspill into some residential streets in Port Hedland is observed to come from the port operations, BHPBIO operations and light industrial/community facilities adjacent to residential streets.

Recommendations During the course of this study a number of issues were raised relating primarily to the strategic long-term planning for the Port Hedland area and the management of cumulative impacts arising from proposed projects.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 97 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

A large number of significant project proposals are being progressed in the Port Hedland region. These are being subject to detailed environmental consideration for their proposed operations and development in the immediate future. The “footprint” of development and the capacity or extent of this development is rapidly changing. There is significant uncertainty as to whether the contextual setting within which projects are being assessed now is reflective of actual future development and the potential cumulative impact in the longer term. The Port Hedland Port Authority Planning Study (2003) and the associated ultimate development plan provide a basis for understanding how the Port Authority would like to progress development of the port operations in future. It is understood that the plan is being revised in 2007. There is benefit to having this plan reviewed and strategically assessed for the potential cumulative impacts (environmental) that may arise from such development.

An agreed framework for future development of the Port Hedland area and the port is strongly recommended. Its focus needs to be on high level strategic planning with clear objectives for future land development across Port Hedland, as well as for the management and monitoring of cumulative environmental impacts arising from a combination of port operations and associated activities. The planning should be based on managing impacts from:

This development framework needs to be supported by an environmental and community health policy for the Port Hedland area, to provide clarity on the acceptable environmental standards to be achieved in the area, both now and into future. This is particularly important given that both noise and dust levels are higher than this study’s assessment criteria, and that additional emissions sources are planned in the future. It is also important for placing in context the likely cumulative impacts of interest in future, such as particles 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. To be effective, such a policy needs to have the support of the state government, industry and local community.

Those operators in Port Hedland contributing to the key impacts of air quality and noise would benefit from adopting a cooperative approach to monitoring these impacts and managing these issues. The open exchange of relevant project and proposal details would facilitate the future assessment of potential cumulative impacts with more certainty.

Industry co-operation has developed in the Kwinana region with the establishment of the Kwinana Industries Council facilitating the operation of an industry network of ambient air quality monitoring sites in the region. The number of companies operating in, and exporting through, Port Hedland, has increased in recent years. With further growth in operations projected, the timely

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 98 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

establishment of an industry council may facilitate the interactions between companies, the government and the community. The exchange of relevant project and proposal details would also facilitate the future assessment of potential cumulative impacts with more certainty.

Further increases or changes to dust and noise emission sources in the region, beyond those included in the 2015-2020 scenario, will require further consideration.

Traffic is a major consideration in the future development of the Port Hedland region, and a long- term strategic management plan for the predicted significant increase in road traffic needs to be developed. The strategy should take into account the traffic impacts in the context of risk, noise and air quality amongst other factors. Where possible, it is recommended that future operations give priority to moving freight by rail to minimise road traffic and associated impacts, or to separate heavy haulage traffic from commuter and other traffic. Further investigation of the potential impact on the community from noise associated with heavy haulage vehicles is recommended. The extent to which road transport contributes to emissions of air pollutants, in particular dust levels and air toxics, is yet to be determined in Port Hedland and should be assessed further. This is of particular concern under the future scenarios where there is a substantial increase in heavy duty vehicle movements.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 99 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

The potential development of photochemical smog under future development scenarios requires investigation. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur should be undertaken in the event that additional increases in shipping (and heavy haulage) are proposed beyond those identified in the 2015-2020 future scenario. Further consideration of the emission of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur should be undertaken in the event that an industrial emission source is proposed in the Port Hedland area, including the Boodarie industrial estate. Subject to further details becoming available (shipping fuel source and quality), other contaminants (such as heavy metals, BTEX, and other air toxics) that may result from shipping emissions, warrants further investigation.

The combined increase in diesel emission sources (shipping and heavy haulage vehicles) projected for the future is sufficient to suggest the need for undertaking baseline monitoring in the Port

Hedland area for PM2.5, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. For completeness investigation into ozone levels and the potential of the generation of photochemical smog is also recommended.

Studies being progressed by the Department of Health are intended to inform the understanding of the potential health impact to the community arising from exposure to particles in this environment. As an interim approach, and based on the current understanding of the potential health impact associated with exposure to particles in general, it is recommended that planning strategies that reduce the likelihood of placing people in this location for any extended period of time are pursued or supported.

The completion of a risk assessment involving direct access to all relevant sites as well as specific information of operations, layout and configuration, management plans and procedures, requires further consideration. Particular focus on Wedgefield is justified in the first instance.

Lighting or energy audits of operations and facilities in Port Hedland are recommended, especially in conjunction with future expansion or development plans.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 100 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

8. Acknowledgements

The assistant of the following organisations and their representatives are acknowledged for their contribution and provision of information to the study.

Aditya Birla - Melody Jardine

BHPBIO - Gavin Price

Consolidated Minerals - Alister Croll, Evan Platts

Coogee Chemicals - Les Vogiatzakis

Dampier Salt - Graham Spalding

Department of Environment and Conservation - Anne Trevena

Department of Consumer and Employment Protection - Ann Revell, Lawry Lim, Peter Drygala, Michelle Crean

Department of Health - Dr Paul Van Bynder

Department of Industry and Resources - Ross Atkin, Lynette Stone

Fortescue Metals Group Limited - Neil Miller

Landgate

Main Roads WA - Mick Edwards, Justin McKirdy

MPD JV - Ben Loffler

Newcrest Mining Ltd - Jason Froud

Port Hedland International Airport - Eleanor Whiteley

Port Hedland Port Authority - Andre Bush, Craig Wilson

Town of Port Hedland - Andrew Patterson, Jenella Voitkevich

Tox Free - Steve Gostlow

Vipac Engineers and Scientist Ltd - Phil Lucas, Nathan Robertson, Martin Wilson

Water Corporation - George Jones

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 101 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 102 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

9. References

BHP 1996. Port Hedland Dust Management Programme. Consultative Environmental Review. BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd, July 1996

BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd 1996. Port Hedland Dust Management Programme – Consultative Environmental Review, Halpern Glick Maunsell, Perth.

BHP/Woodward-Clyde 1994. Port Hedland Heavy Industry Site Study - Engineering and Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Woodward Clyde for BHP Billiton Iron Ore.

BHPBIO 2002. Port Hedland Dust Management Program. BHP Billiton Iron Ore, February 2002.

BHPBIO 2006. Revision of the Dust Management Program for Finucane Island and Nelson Point Operations. Section 46 Amendments to Ministerial Statement 433. Prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz for BHPBIO, September 2006.

DoE 2000. Morbidity and Mortality: A Case-Crossover Analysis 1992-1997, Department of Environment, Perth

DEP 2002. Monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorology during the Pilbara Air Quality Study. Technical Series 113, Department of Environmental Protection, Perth Western Australia, September 2002.

DEP 2004a. Karratha–Dampier and Burrup Peninsula Emissions Inventory 1999. Department of Environmental Protection, Perth Western Australia.

DEP 2004b. Pilbara Air Quality Study Summary Report. Department of Environmental Protection, Perth Western Australia.

DoH 2005. Port Hedland Community Bulletin – Department of Health Dust Review. Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, July 2005.

DoH 2006. Draft – Literature Review and Report on Potential Health Impacts of Exposure to Crustal Material in Port Hedland. Asthma and Allergy Research Institute Inc. Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital, Western Australia and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, July 2006.

DPI 2004. Enquiry by Design, Community Workshops. Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Government of Western Australia.

DRD/Woodward-Clyde 1996. Boodarie Resource Processing Estate - Environmental Report Environmental (Noise) Regulations, 1997.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 103 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

EA 2002. Review of data on heavy metals in ambient air in Australia: Technical Report No. 3, Environment Australia, Canberra.

EPA 1996. Upgrade of Dust Management at Finucane Island and Nelson Point, Port Hedland. BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd: Report and recommendations. Bulletin 831. Environmental Protection Authority. Western Australia.

EPA 2000. Guidance Statement No 2 - Guidance for Risk Assessment and Management: Offsite Individual Risk from Hazardous Industrial Plant. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA 2002. Guidance Statement No. 47 – Guidance for the Assessment of Odour Impacts from New Proposals. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.

Fluor Daniel 1998. Development Strategy and Capacity Study. Prepared for Department of Resources Development.

FMG 2005. Pilbara Iron Ore and Infrastructure Project, Stage B East-West Railway and Mine Sites PER. Prepared by Environ Australia Pty Ltd for Fortescue Metal Group.

HDMS 2002. Hope Downs Iron Ore Project Rail and Port Facility Public Environmental Review February 2002. Hope Downs Management Services.

HGM 1997. Port Hedland Port Developments - Environmental Study. Prepared for Port Hedland Port Authority by Halpern Glick Maunsell

HGM 1999. Port Hedland Harbour Model Study. Prepared for Port Hedland Port Authority by Halpern Glick Maunsell.

Lloyd Acoustics Pty Ltd 2002. Hope Downs Proposed Port and Rail facility at Port Hedland: Environmental Noise Impact Study. Prepared for Hope Downs Management Services.

Lorimer, G. 1988. The AUSPLUME Gaussian dispersion model. Environment Protection Authority of Victoria, publication no. 264

Ministry for Planning 1997. Port Hedland Land Use Survey. October 1997.

PHPA 1995. Port Strategy 1995. Port Hedland Port Authority.

PHPA 1997. Strategic Plan Update, March 1997. Port Hedland Port Authority.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 104 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Physick and Blockley 2001. An evaluation of air quality models for the Pilbara region. CSIRO Atmospheric Research and Department of Environmental Protection, June 2001. Report to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Physick, W.L. 2001. Meteorology and air quality of the Pilbara region. CSIRO Atmospheric Research. May 2001. Report to the Department of Environmental Protection.

SKM 2006. Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Area of Port Hedland. Revised Proposal for Provision of Services. Prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz.

SMEC 2004. Northern Strategic Impact Assessment ESE Study. Prepared by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation.

Taylor Burrell Barnett June 2004. Port Hedland Industrial Land Use Strategy, Final Report

ToPH 1999. Town Planning Scheme No 5. Town of Port Hedland.

ToPH 2004. 2004 – 2009 Port Hedland Coastal Management Plan. Prepared by Ecoscape for the Town of Port Hedland.

ToPH 2006. Land Use Master Plan. Town of Port Hedland

WAPC 2003. Port Hedland Area Planning Study. Western Australian Planning Commission. Government of Western Australia.

WHO 2000. Air quality guidelines for Europe. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Woodward-Clyde 1996. Boodarie Resource Processing Estate Environmental Report.

Worley 2003. Port Hedland Port Authority Planning Study Phase 2 Report. August 2003

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 105 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 106 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

10. Abbreviations and Acronyms

BHP B BHP Billiton

BHPBIO BHP Billiton Iron Ore

CIA Cumulative Impact Study

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

DoE Department of Environment

DoH Department of Health

DoIR Department of Industry and Resources

DoW Department of Water

DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure

FMG Fortescue Metals Group

LA10 the A-weighted sound level exceeded for 10% of a specified time period

LAmax the maximum A-weighted sound level

NEPM National Environment Protection Measure

NSIA ESE Northern Strategic Industry Areas Environmental, Social and Economic

PER Public Environmental Review/Public Environment Report

PHPA Port Hedland Port Authority

PM10 Particles 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter

SKM Sinclair Knight Merz

SMEC Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

ToPH Town of Port Hedland

TSP Total suspended particulates

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 107 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 108 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SliM

Appendix A Air Quality

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 109 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 110 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SliM

A.1 Air Quality (Dust) Modelling and Assessment Report

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 111 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 112 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

DUST MODELLING REPORT

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

DUST MODELLING REPORT

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Sinclair Knight Merz Level 12, Mayfair House 54 The Terrace PO Box 10-283 Wellington New Zealand Tel: +64 4 473 4265 Fax: +64 4 473 3369 Web: www.skmconsulting.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright. LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

The SKM logo is a trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. © Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, 2006

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Contents

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope of Report 2 1.3 Other Pollutants 3 2. Ambient Air Quality Particulate (Dust) Criteria 5 2.1 Overview 5 2.2 Ambient Air Quality Criteria 5 2.2.1 National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) 6 2.2.2 Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation (WA DEC) 6 2.2.3 Criteria for this assessment 7 3. Existing Dust Levels 9

4. Modelling Scenarios 11 4.1 Base case 11 4.2 2010 future development 12 4.3 2015-2020 future development 13 5. Operational Facilities 15

6. Source Emission Factors 19 6.1 Operational Dust Emission Estimates 19

6.1.1 PM10 Emission factors 19 6.1.2 TSP Emission factors 20 6.2 Emission Sources 21 6.2.1 Rail Car Dumping 21 6.2.2 Conveyor Transfers 21 6.2.3 Screening 21 6.2.4 Stacking 22 6.2.5 Reclaiming 22 6.2.6 Ship Loading 22 6.2.7 Vehicular Generated Dust 22 6.3 Wind Erosion from Disturbed Areas 23 7. Dispersion Modelling 25 7.1 Modelling Approach 25 7.2 Ausplume Modelling 25 7.2.1 Grid System 25 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE i Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

7.2.2 Model Terrain 26 7.2.3 Time Series Meteorological Data 26 7.2.4 Dry Depletion Method 28 7.2.5 Dispersion Curves 29 7.2.6 Sensitive Receptors 30 7.2.7 Dust Emission Data 30 8. Predicted Ground Level Dust Concentrations 31 8.1 Accuracy of Results 31

8.2 Maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations 31 8.3 Maximum 24 hour TSP concentrations 35 9. Conclusions 37

9.1 TSP and PM10 37 10. References 39

Appendix A AUSPLUME Configuration File 41

Appendix B Meteorological File Summary 51

Appendix C Metal Constituent of Dust 55

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Daily Average PM10 Concentrations (April 1996–February 2006) (BHPBIO 2006) 9

Figure 7-1 - Annual Wind Rose for Port Hedland Airport for the Year 2004/05 27

Figure 7-2 Summer wind rose 28

Figure 7-3 Autumn wind rose 28

Figure 7-4 Winter wind rose 28

Figure 7-5 Spring wind rose 28

Figure 8-1 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Harbour monitoring site 32

Figure 8-2 - Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Hospital monitoring site 33

Figure 8-3 Base Case Scenario – modelled maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 33

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE ii I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Figure 8-4 2010 Scenario – predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 34

Figure 8-5 2015-2020 Scenario – predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations 34

Figure 8-6 - Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Harbour monitoring site 36

Figure 8-7 - Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Hospital monitoring site 36

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE iii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type Draft A 01/06/07 Jon Harper Deanna 01/06/07 Draft-Internal Review Tuxford Draft A 26/07/07 Jon Harper Deanna 26/07/07 Draft – Commercial In- Tuxford confidence (Client Review) Draft 0 10/12/07 Jon Harper Deanna 11/12/07 Tuxford

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to Draft A Electronic 1 Jon Harper Draft A Electronic 1 Ross Atkin, DOIR Draft A Electronic 1 Sally Walker, DOIR

Printed: 28 July 2008

Last saved: 28 July 2008 01:59 PM I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final File name: report\R13_CEIS_airqualityappendixA1_finaldraft.doc

Author: Brent Kennedy Project manager: Deanna Tuxford

Name of organisation: Department of Industry and Resources

Name of project: Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Area of Port Hedland Name of document: Dust Modelling Report

Document version: Rev 0

Project number: AE03149

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE iv I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Background The Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR), on behalf of the Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability, has commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake a study to assess the cumulative environmental impact on air quality in the Port Hedland area arising from the further development of the port operations.

Port Hedland is located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and is one of the main export ports for iron ore in Australia. These export facilities are located immediately adjacent to the town of Port Hedland and have the potential to generate elevated levels of airborne dust. During the 2004/2005 financial year approximately 108.5 million tonnes (Mt) of commodity was exported through these facilities comprising 103.3 Mt of iron ore, 3.6 Mt of salt with the remaining tonnage being manganese, salt, chromite and copper.

Further expansions are currently planned by existing operations and new proponents that will dramatically increase the tonnage through the port. This increase in tonnage has the potential to greatly increase the levels of airborne particulates (dust), therefore the DoIR has requested that a staged cumulative dust assessment be completed.

For this assessment forecasted growth data and proposed developments known at 1 March 2007 were used. Revised forecasts and proposals after this date are not considered in this assessment. The key developments and proposals are summarised below.

BHP Billiton Iron Ore (BHPBIO) currently operates two major stockyards with ship loading facilities in Port Hedland, at Nelson Point and Finucane Island. Iron ore is transported by rail from various mines and is processed on site before being stockpiled and finally exported. During the 2004-2005 year BHPBIO exported 103.3 Mt of iron ore. For the 2010 future scenario it has been forecast that 152 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of iron ore will be exported, increasing to 165 Mtpa of iron ore for the 2015-2020 future scenario.

The Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) proposes to develop the Utah Point area for the operation of stockpiling and ship loading facilities. This proposed public facility will cater for the expected increase in tonnage to 9 Mtpa of bulk commodities, consisting of manganese, chromium and iron ore.

Fortescue Metals Group Limited (FMG) is currently developing a port and stockpile facility on land vested with the PHPA and adjacent vacant Crown Land. When the facility is complete (approximately 2008) it will consist of a rail loop, stockyard and a conveyor system to transfer iron ore from the stockyard to a new wharf and ship loader that will be located at Anderson Point. FMG’s facility is planned to initially export 45 Mtpa of iron ore through the port.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

FMG’s proposed future developments include doubling the capacity of the facility to 90 Mtpa, which includes a second wharf and ship loader and duplicating the stockyard.

Hope Downs Management Services (HDMS) has proposed to develop a stockyard and ship loading facility at Port Hedland, near Harriet Point. The HDMS facility is planned to export 30 Mtpa of iron ore. When the facility is complete it will consist of a rail unloading facility, stockyard and a conveyor system to transfer iron ore from the stockyard to a new wharf and ship loader. It is noted that since the 1 March 2007 data cut-off date, various expansions within the port have been further proposed, altering the expected scale and timing of the port operations. The short term development scenario remains generally reflective of likely development in terms of scale, however the 2015-2020 scenario is expected to be an underestimate of the likely development in the longer term. For example, a recent announcement by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure estimates the port capacity itself to be 420Mtpa compared to the study estimate of 320Mtpa; and BHPBIO now has a growth target of 300Mtpa by 2015 compared to the study estimate of 165Mtpa for the 2015-2020 scenario.

Historically, the major air quality issue within the port area of Port Hedland is considered to be dust. Dust is generally defined as particles that can remain suspended in the air by turbulence for an appreciable length of time. Particulate matter, commonly referred to as dust, can be defined by the size of the particles, with particles commonly classified as:

Total suspended particulates (TSP), which is all particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 50 μm diameter

PM10, particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 10 μm diameter; and

PM2.5, particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic particle size below 2.5 μm diameter.

For this modelling assessment only TSP and PM10 were assessed and modelled. Previous studies in the Port Hedland region have identified this particle size range as the most relevant description of the particulate matter in the air at Port Hedland (BHPBIO 2006).

1.2 Scope of Report This air quality assessment includes the following:

An assessment of the impact of dust (PM10 and TSP) from the current PHPA port operation based on data from the 2004-05 financial year. This scenario is used as the base case for the modelling assessment. SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 2 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

An assessment of the impact of dust from two scenarios forecast for the future: 1. Short-term development that accounts for the known expansion of BHPBIO (RGP4 at 152 Mtpa), the proposed PHPA Utah Point development (at 9 Mtpa) and FMG’s Anderson Point project (at 45 Mtpa). The time horizon is set at 2010. 2. Long-term development that accounts for further BHPBIO expansion (RGP5 at 165 Mtpa), the continued operation of PHPA Utah Point operation (at 9 Mtpa), an expanded FMG Anderson Point operation (at 90 Mtpa), and introduction of the Hope Down operations. The time horizon is set at a range being 2015 to 2020.

Modelled predictions of the maximum 24-hour PM10 and TSP concentrations for all scenarios at the Port Hedland “Harbour” and “Hospital” Dust Monitors;

A comparison of dust levels from the three scenarios assessed for nominated sensitive receptors in the study area.

Dust modelling has been limited to the physical size categories of PM10 and TSP. The chemical composition of the dust and its potential impact on the environment has not been considered in this assessment.

1.3 Other Pollutants For this modelling assessment no other air pollutants were modelled. Measurements undertaken for other atmospheric pollutants in Port Hedland, such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and ozone, demonstrated that levels were below the NEPM criteria (SKM 2003). A mobile emission source inventory is reported separately (Appendix A2, Main Report) along with further details on predicted shipping emissions (Appendix A3, Main Report).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 3 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SliM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 4 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

2. Ambient Air Quality Particulate (Dust) Criteria

This section discusses the particulate ambient air quality criteria relevant to this cumulative assessment. This criterion is used in air quality modelling to determine whether particulate levels may be considered harmful to human health, in particular for this assessment, the potential impact on the community of Port Hedland. Comparisons are made between maximum concentrations of particulates and the referenced criterion. The source of the criterion and its applicability to the assessment context is also outlined.

2.1 Overview Particulate matter (particles) in the air come from a variety of sources and are generally referred to according to size. Common measures are particles of the size 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). Total suspended particulates (TSP) is a measure of particles 50 microns in diameter or less, and hence includes in its measurement the contribution of

the smaller PM10 and PM2.5 size range.

Particles of the larger size range (TSP) are of concern due to their ability to create a nuisance or amenity impact. Particles of the size 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) are of concern to the wider community due to their ability to penetrate deep into a person’s lungs and enter the bloodstream. Particles settle in different parts of the lungs and where they settle depends primarily on the particle size. Some of the health issues that arise include respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function, irregular heartbeat and premature death in people with heart or lung disease (USEPA 2006b). Generally, the smaller the particle, the deeper it can be breathed into the lungs, and hence increasing concern and research is being focussed on PM2.5.

Extensive monitoring and characterisation of particles in Port Hedland (BHPBIO 2006) has identified a large proportion of the airborne dust as being crustal in nature and larger than 10 microns. Characterisation of ambient particles measured in Port Hedland strongly indicates that the ratio of particulate fractions is about:

PM2.5 concentration = 0.10 × TSP concentration

PM10 concentration = 0.40 × TSP concentration

In terms of assessing potential health impacts, PM10 is considered to be a more representative measure of particulates in Port Hedland (BHPBIO 2006).

2.2 Ambient Air Quality Criteria The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) requires that ‘all reasonable and practicable means should be used to prevent and minimise the discharge of waste’ (EPA 2000).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 5 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

For new proposals the EPA requires an assessment of the best available technologies for minimising the discharge of waste for the processes and justification for the adopted technology.

In addition, the EPA routinely adopts ambient air quality criteria. As a matter of policy, the EPA reference the National Environment Protection Measure standards for air ambient quality, and for other air contaminants has routinely adopted criteria from other jurisdictions with preference given to World Health Organisation guidelines.

2.2.1 National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) The information provided in Table 2-1 is taken from National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), highlighting the Australian ambient air quality standards for particles that are in place via the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Ambient Air Quality (NEPC 1998). The NEPM standards are designed to protect human health, and hence are relevant to this assessment. The EPA proposes that the NEPM standards be incorporated in a state-wide Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) to apply across all areas of WA, excluding industrial areas and residence free buffer zones, and be supported by a State Environment Policy (NEPC 2007).

Table 2-1 National Environment Protection Measure Standards and Goals for Particles

Maximum Concentration Goal within 10 years Pollutant Averaging Period maximum allowable (ppm) exceedences (μg/m3)1

Particles as PM10 1 day 50 5 days per year 2 Particles as PM2.5 1 day 24 1 year 8 Note: 1 Concentrations of gaseous pollutants in italics have been converted to μg/m3 based on a temperature of 0°C and a pressure of 101.3kPa. 2 Advisory reporting standard designed to gather sufficient data nationally to facilitate a review of the standard.

2.2.2 Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation (WA DEC) Dust criteria for the larger particle size range (TSP) is described in the Kwinana Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) (EPA 1999). The EPP specifies air quality standards and limits for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP), expressed as a 24 hour average, within the Kwinana industrial areas (Area A), an intermediate buffer zone area (Area B) and surrounding residential area (Area C). The EPP defines a standard as a concentration that is desirable not to be exceeded, and a limit as the concentration that is not to be exceeded. The EPP standards and limits are listed in Table 2-2.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 6 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

In addition to 24-hour standards, the EPP outlines a short-term (15-minute average) standard of 1,000 μg/m3 for very short term dust events. This limit was originally established to control nuisance-causing dust from stock holding paddocks.

Table 2-2 Total Suspended Particulate Standards and Limits for the Kwinana Policy Area

Species Area 2 Averaging Period Standard1 (μg/m3) Limit1 (μg/m3) Particles A,B,C 15-minute - 1,000 A 24-hour 150 260 B 24-hour 90 260 C 24-hour 90 150 Notes: 1) All values expressed at 0oC and 101.3 kPa. 2) Area A: the area of land on which heavy industry is located Area B: the area surrounding industry designated as buffer zone, plus other outlying land zoned for industrial use Area C: land beyond areas A and B used predominantly for rural and residential purposes.

Historically the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has used the residential TSP standards and limits as objectives for new industrial developments, including mines and material handling facilities, within WA.

2.2.3 Criteria for this assessment For the purposes of this assessment:

3 the NEPM PM10 standard (50 μg/m (24 hr average)) is used as the criterion for comparison at sensitive receptors to assess potential health impacts; 3 the EPP Area C limit (150 μg/m (24 hr average)) is used as the criterion for comparison at to assess potential amenity impacts; and

PM2.5 has not been considered further in this study. In addition, the two future scenarios are compared relative to the base-case predictions.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 7 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SliM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 8 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

3. Existing Dust Levels

The semi-arid landscape of the Pilbara is a naturally dusty environment with wind-blown dust a significant contributor to ambient dust levels within the region. This was highlighted by the aggregated emission study that was conducted by SKM in 2000 (SKM 2003). This study found that the Pilbara region emitted around 170,000,000kg of wind blown particulate matter in the 1998- 1999 financial year.

This is confirmed in Figure 3-1 which shows the natural background PM10 concentrations as recorded by measurements taken at the Port Hedland Airport. The figure shows that the 3 background levels often exceed the NEPM standard for PM10 of 50 µg/m (SKM 2003). The model and model predictions have included consideration of the background concentration.

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

24-hour Average PM10 Concentration (µg/m3) Concentration PM10 Average 24-hour 0.0 1/8/2004 5/9/2005 19/4/2001 5/11/2001 24/5/2002 28/6/2003 14/1/2004 17/2/2005 24/3/2006 10/12/2002 10/10/2006

Figure 3-1 Daily Average PM10 Concentrations (April 1996–February 2006) (BHPBIO 2006)

In addition to these naturally high background levels of PM10 dust particles, the study also found that most of the PM10 measured in the town of Port Hedland is locally generated (SKM 2003).

Measurements of other atmospheric pollutants in Port Hedland, such as NOx and ozone, were below the NEPM criteria (SKM 2003). SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 9 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SliM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 10 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

4. Modelling Scenarios

For this cumulative dust assessment, three modelling scenarios have been considered for PM10 and TSP. These scenarios are consistent with the scenarios of the cumulative impact assessment, however only the major sources of PM10 and TSP are considered in the modelling. Sources considered to have a minor dust discharge are not included in the modelling scenarios. Dust generated from road and rail transportation to the stockpile facilities is also not included in the modelling assessment.

4.1 Base case The base case scenario is based on data for the 2004-2005 financial year. This includes the PHPA activities through Berth 1 and the current BHP Billiton Iron Ore (BHPBIO) Finucane Island and Nelson Point operations. These operations are considered to be the key contributors to atmospheric dust in the port area. The tonnage for this scenario is detailed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Bulk tonnage for base case scenario

Manganese Ore Chromite Ore Iron Ore (Mtpa) (Mtpa) (Mtpa) PHPA Berth 1 – Consolidated Minerals 0.7 0.28 BHPBIO – Finucane Island/Nelson Point 103.3

The following assumptions are made for the current port operations:

Truck unloading of manganese and chromium on site will be operating Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm at a tonnage rate of 342 tonnes per hour.

One front-end loader (FEL) will be operating during this period to build the main stockpile.

One week before a shipment is due the stockpile at the wharf will be constructed. During this period two trucks will be operating 20 hours a day 7 days a week. Two FEL loaders will be in use, one to load the trucks and the second to construct the stockpile at the wharf.

During the ship loading process one FEL is used to load the feed hopper. The loading rate is 900 tonne per hours.

Parameters for the BHPBIO operations are based on data from their current operations. The data for this scenario was provided by BHPBIO on a confidential basis for use in this assessment. This data is identical to that used in the Section 46 report (BHPBIO 2006) and represents the model validation for the 2004-2005 financial year

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 11 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

4.2 2010 future development This scenario includes the proposed PHPA Utah Point development (9 Mtpa bulk tonnage), BHPBIO’s Finucane Island and Nelson Point operations at RPG4 stage, and Fortescue Metals Group’s (FMG) Anderson Point development. The bulk tonnage for this scenario is detailed in Table 4-2

Table 4-2 – Bulk tonnage for the 2010 future development scenario (estimated at 1 March 2007)

Manganese (Mtpa) Chromium (Mtpa) Iron Ore (Mtpa) PHPA Utah Pt – Consolidated Minerals 0.918 0.256 -

PHPA Utah Point – PMI - - 0.307 PHPH Utah Point – Atlas Iron - - 3 PHPA Utah Point – Polaris Metals - - 2.5

PHPA Utah point – Aurox Resources - - 2

FGM – Anderson Point - - 45 BHPBIO – Finucane Island/Nelson Point - - 152

Maximum Total Tonnage through port = 205 Mtpa

The following assumptions are made for the 2010 future development.

All bulk products to Utah Point are transported by truck (assumed to be triples and is considered worst case for the number of associated vehicle movements). The trucking operations are detailed in Table 4-3.

Utah Point stackers for each stockpile operate only while trucks unload for each stockpile.

The operation of the ship loader at Utah Point is based on 129 ship movement through the year. These movements are spaced evenly throughout the year and all ships are assumed to be the same size or capacity.

The FMG operation is based on information provide in the Environ 2004 dust modelling assessment (FMG 2005).

The BHPBIO operations are based on data from their current operations and extrapolated to include RGP4 (BHPBIO 2006). Based on estimated tonnage throughput of 152 Mtpa, an estimated 1013 to 1033 ship loads of ore leave the port per annum.

The transportation of iron ore to BHPBIO’s and FMG’s stockpile facilities is by separate rail lines. SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 12 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Table 4-3 – Estimated Trucks to Utah Point (2010 and 2015 to 2020) (estimated at 1 March 2007)

Trucks per day (all Daily Operation Daily Tonnage triples) Hours Consolidated Minerals (Mn) 36 24 2,520 Consolidated Minerals (Cr) 10 12 700 PMI 12 20 840 Atlas Iron 117 20 8,190 Polaris Metals 98 20 6,860 Aurox Resources 78 24 5,460 Total 351 24,570

4.3 2015-2020 future development This scenario includes the assumed operation of BHPBIO’s predicted RGP5 future operations, FMG’s expanded Anderson Point development (90 Mtpa), PHPA’s proposed Utah Point development, and the proposed Hope Down operation. The bulk tonnage for this scenario is detailed in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4 – Bulk tonnage for the 2015-20 future development scenario (estimated at 1 March 2007)

Manganese (Mtpa) Chromium (Mtpa) Iron Ore (Mtpa) PHPA Utah Pt – Consolidated Minerals 0.918 0.256 -

PHPA Utah Point – PMI - - 0.307 PHPH Utah Point – Atlas Iron - - 3 PHPA Utah Point – Polaris Metals - - 2.5

PHPA Utah point – Aurox Resources - - 2

FGM – Anderson Point - - 90 BHPBIO – Finucane Island/Nelson Point - - 165

Hope Downs - - 30 Maximum Total Tonnage through port =293 Mtpa

The following assumptions have been made for 2015-2020 future development scenario.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 13 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Utah Point stackers for each stockpile operate only while trucks unload for each stockpile.

The operation of the ship loader at Utah Point is based on 129 ship movements through the year. These movements are spaced evenly throughout the year and all ships are assumed to be the same size.

The FMG operation is based on information provided in the proposal’s dust modelling assessment (Environ 2004). The increase in capacity of FMG’s operation (45 to 90 Mtpa) is assumed to be achieved by duplication to the west of the 2010 facility.

The BHPBIO operations are based on data from their current operations and extrapolated to include RGP5 (BHPBIO 2006). Based on estimated tonnage throughput, an estimated 1100 ship loads of ore leave the port annually.

The transportation of iron ore to BHPBIO’s, FMG’s, and Hope Downs stockpile facilities is by rail.

The Hope Down operation is based on information provided in the modelling assessment of the fugitive dust emissions from the proposed facilities (SKM 2005). It is noted that since the 1 March 2007 data cut-off date, various expansions within the port have been further proposed, altering the expected scale and timing of the port operations. The short term development scenario remains generally reflective of likely development in terms of scale, however the 2015-2020 scenario is expected to be an underestimate of the likely development in the longer term. For example, a recent announcement by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure estimates the port capacity itself to be 420Mtpa compared to the study estimate of 320Mtpa; and BHPBIO now has a growth target of 300Mtpa by 2015 compared to the study estimate of 165Mtpa for the 2015-2020 scenario.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 14 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

5. Operational Facilities

In 2004-2005 the Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) achieved a total throughput of 108.5 Mtpa of commodity, a 20% increase over the previous financial year. Iron ore exports accounted for over 95% of the throughput and salt exports reached record levels of 3.6 Mtpa tonnes. The rapid growth and expansion of the industries in and around Port Hedland using the port was unprecedented and the growth is anticipated to continue into the future. The PHPA envisages that the existing port area has a total throughput capacity of around 320 Mtpa (as known at 1 March 2007) however recent announcements by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure states an increase in this capacity to 420Mtpa. Key industries currently using the port are BHPBIO, Dampier Salt, Consolidated Minerals and Newcrest. FMG are expected to be operational during 2008, followed by other prospective iron ore operators.

Table 5-1 is a summary of the key industries and operations of interest in the Port Hedland area with an overview of the likely expected changes to the operations in the immediate future. As discussed previously, this is notional only, and may be subject to change. Of particular note is the possible future development of vanadium deposits and magnetite deposits in the area. This may see further bulk material exports through the port of up to 2 Mtpa. However, to date, there is no definite proposal and hence this potential development has been excluded from further consideration in the cumulative assessment.

Similarly the project scope required consideration of likely or realistic development at the port to be modelled. The future scenario set for 2015-2020 is approximately 90% of the total tonnage capacity of the port.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 15 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SliM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 16 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Table 5-1 - Existing operations of key interest in Port Hedland

Company Operations Current Operations (2004-2005) Future Projections (as determined at 1 March 2007) BHP Billiton Iron Ore Iron Ore transport, transfer, Operational at 118 Mtpa in 2004–2005. Future expansion planned to 165 Mtpa. (BHPBIO) processing, stockpiling and shipping. Fortescue Metals Group Iron Ore transport, transfer, Project approved for 45 Mtpa iron ore Future expansion planned. Limited (FMG) processing and shipping. production. FMG plan to ship magnetite in the near future. Dampier Salt Pty Ltd Salt “manufacture”, transport, Production approximately 3 Mtpa. Future growth predicted to 4 Mtpa. transfer, storage and shipping. If edible grade salt planned then potential contamination from dust from iron ore and other ores needs management – covered storage and loading salt is an option. Newcrest Copper concentrate transport, Production approximately 10,000 tpa. Future growth estimated to 130,000 tpa transfer, storage and shipping. but peaking at 240,000 tpa. Birla Copper concentrate transport, No export in 2004-2005. Copper concentrate estimated to be transfer, storage and shipping. exported in 2010. Consolidated Minerals Manganese and chromite Export approximately 500,000 tpa of Future growth in manganese exports transport, transfer, storage and manganese. estimated to double. shipping. Export approximately 250,000 tpa of Future growth in chromite exports chromite. estimated to be over 500,000 tpa, but estimations do not extend to 2010. Various Livestock export. Approximately 20,000 tpa. Stable with no expected growth. Livestock numbers highly dependent on climate (rainfall). BP Oil and fuel storage. Combined amount of oil and fuel imported Oil and fuel import and storage expected approximately 440,000 tpa. to grow at a rate dependent on iron ore Caltex and mineral mining growth rates and may double in the future. Coogee Chemicals Chemical import and storage. Importing approximately 147,000 tpa. Imports expected to increase with growth in industry demand and then stabilise.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 17 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 18 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

6. Source Emission Factors

Dust emissions from most sources vary with the:

moisture content of the ore;

size distribution of the ore;

ability of the ore to form crusts; and

the prevailing wind speed.

This is particularly the case for dust generated from wind erosion and material handling processes such as stacking and reclaiming. To provide estimates of how these sources vary with the wind speed, relationships have been derived for wind erosion and most operational activities considered in the scenarios. The following section details the emission estimates used in the dispersion modelling and the control factors utilised.

6.1 Operational Dust Emission Estimates

6.1.1 PM10 Emission factors The USEPA has derived emission formulae from extensive trials of dust emissions from operational activities. These have determined that dust emissions are generally dependent on such factors as the wind speed, moisture content, drop distance, vehicle speed and vehicle weight. These formulae do not specifically take into account the different chemical and physical properties of different ores.

For the Australian situation, the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI 2001) has provided empirical and default values for emissions from operational activities. These have generally been sourced from the USEPA and modified by factors determined from coal mining in NSW where data is available. For iron ore operations the only data publicly available is from Pitts (2000), which indicates that emission factors can be significantly different from those published elsewhere, most notably the lower emission factors for lump re-screening plants.

For this report, emission estimates were based on the NPI EET Manuals and USEPA emission factors and taking into account the dustiness test work (SKM 2002). For the operations where data is available in Pitts (2000) or NPI (2001), the dust emissions used were for “high” moisture content ores.

A summary of the PM10 emission equations and factors used is summarised in Table 6-1.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 19 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Table 6-1 - Source PM10 emission rates

Source Emission Rate Control Reference (kg/t)

Rail Car Dumping Total enclosure, with Emission Estimation Technique 0.002 fabric filters (98% Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) - High Moisture (Fines) efficiency) Bulking In Feed Enclosure (92 % Emission Estimation Technique Hopper 0.002 efficiency) Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) - (Lump and Fines) Unloading trucks 0.004 No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) FEL Loading trucks 0.004 No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) FEL Loading hopper 0.004 Enclosure with water Emission Estimation Technique sprays (60%) Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001)

FEL – Pushing 0.002 No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) Dozing 4 (kg/hr) No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) Conveyor Transfers Totally enclosed, with Emission Estimation Technique - (Lump and Fines) 0.002 water sprays (90%) Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) Included in emission rate value Stacking Variable height stacker Emission Estimation Technique - (Lump and Fines) 0.002 with water sprays Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) - (70%) Reclaiming Emission Estimation Technique - (Lump and Fines) 0.002 Water Sprays (50%) Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001)

Screening Building Total enclosure, with Emission Estimation Technique - (Lump) 0.015 fabric filters (95% Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) efficiency) Ship Loading 0.002 Variable height stacker Emission Estimation Technique with water sprays Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) (60%) Haul trucks (unpaved) 0.96 (kg/vkt) No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001) Haul trucks (paved) 0.2622 (kg/vkt) No controls Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining (NPI, 2001)

6.1.2 TSP Emission factors

For modelling TSP, a TSP variable hourly emission was created by multiplying the PM10 emission by 2.86, that is, the ratio of PM10 to TSP used in the model for particle sizing (see Section 7.2.4).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 20 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

6.2 Emission Sources 6.2.1 Rail Car Dumping Due to enclosures and the use of dust extraction systems, emissions from this source are expected to be very small for iron ore dumping. The efficiency of the control measures for this operation was taken as 98%, which is less than the recommended 99% for a totally enclosed system (NPI 2001).

Rail car dumping is used at the BHPBIO iron ore facilities. For this air quality assessment, it is assumed that car dumpers have an average unloading rate of 8,000 tph, with a maximum rate of 10,000 tph. Car dumping is assumed to occur for 12.25 hours per day for 325 days of the year.

Rail car dumping is assumed for the proposed FMG iron ore facilities. For this air quality assessment, it is assumed that the car dumpers have an average unloading rate of 6,850 tph. Car dumping is assumed to occur for 18 hours per day for 365 days of the year.

Rail car dumping is assumed for the proposed Hope Down iron ore facilities. For this air quality assessment, it is assumed that the car dumpers have an average unloading rate of 4,566 tph. Car dumping is assumed to occur for 18 hours per day for 365 days of the year.

It is assumed that no rail is to be used at the proposed PHPA Utah Point facilities.

6.2.2 Conveyor Transfers Conveyor transfers can be a significant source of dust emissions. Emissions for both lumps and fines were estimated using the emission value for “high” moisture content fines (Pitts 2000). For the purpose of this assessment the efficiency of control measures is assumed to be 92%.

Conveyor transfers on the in-loading side, from the car dumper to stockpiles, are assumed to operate as for the car dumper and bulking in feed hopper. Emissions from conveyors on the ship loading sequence are estimated based on the reclaiming and ship loading times.

6.2.3 Screening The screening operations are assumed to be covered or enclosed and include an operating dust extraction system with a bag house filter. Emissions are estimated using the emission value for high moisture ore. For the purpose of this assessment the control measure efficiency are assumed to be 95%.

Data input for BHPBIO’s screening operation is based on actual production data.

The proposed FMG screening operation is assumed to operate for 18 hours a day, 365 days a year, at an average rate of 5,327 tpa.

The proposed Hope Down screening operations is assumed to operate for 18 hours a day, 365 days a year, at an average rate of 3,805 tpa. SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 21 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

It is assumed that there is no screening of bulk materials in operation at PHPA Berth 1. It should be noted that screening only occurs with ‘lump’ material during shiploading. As this material typically only comprises 40% of the total throughput the emissions used in this assessment should be considered to be an over-estimate.

6.2.4 Stacking For this assessment the stackers are assumed to be “luffing and slewing” stackers, that will control the drop height to the stockpile. The booms are assumed to be fitted with water spray heads to minimise the dust emissions. The control measures efficiency is assumed to be 70%.

Yearly throughput tonnages and rated operating capacities were used to determine the number of hours of emission per day for these sources. Stacking operation is assumed to occur at the same time as the unloading of bulk materials.

6.2.5 Reclaiming Emissions for the lump and fines ores is taken as the “high” moisture value (Pitts 2000). A control efficiency of 50% is used in this assessment for the use of water sprays on the reclaimers (NPI 2000).

Reclaimer operations were linked to the operation of the ship loader at each facility.

6.2.6 Ship Loading Emissions from ship loading are estimated using the default emission value provide in the NPI manual, with a control efficiency of 50% for use of water sprays. The emission value for ship loading as presented in Pitts (2000) was used.

Ship loading rates are assumed to be 90% of the ship loader capacity. This is used to control the operational time based on the average shipment size.

The scheduling of shipments is based on the annual tonnage of the facility and the average shipment size. These are assumed to be evenly spread throughout the year.

For the base case scenario actual shipment details are used to determine the operational time of the ship loader and other material load out facilities.

6.2.7 Vehicular Generated Dust Wheel generated dust from vehicles travelling along un-paved areas around the sites are estimated using the USEPA Equation for Unpaved Roads (USEPA 2004). Light service vehicles and loaders

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 22 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

were considered, with emissions incorporating a control efficiency of 50% due to the use of water spraying.

Emissions from paved roads at PHPA Berth 1 are estimated using NPI Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads.

Vehicular emissions from BHPBIO operations are estimated using on site measurements and site operational data.

Other sites are considered to be trivial in scale of contribution and are not incorporated as a source in the dispersion modelling.

6.3 Wind Erosion from Disturbed Areas Observations made at similar ore handling facilities in the Pilbara indicate that wind generated dust emissions from stockpiles and open areas is typically low when wind speeds are below a certain threshold, and increase rapidly as wind speeds increase above the threshold (Pitts 2000).

The rapid increase in dust emission rates is due to the wind exceeding the threshold speed at which particles are dislodged. Under these conditions, particles bounce along the surface of the stockpile or flat area and then eject smaller dust particles from the surface. Various researchers have studied dust emissions from flat surfaces, with both theory and observations generally agreeing that dust emissions increase rapidly above the particular threshold wind speed.

The NPI emission estimation manual (NPI 2001) presents a simple empirical value of 0.2 kg/ha/hr for PM10 emissions. This does not take into account the climate, rainfall, evaporation, frequency of strong winds or the nature of the surface. This value was chosen as the USEPA methodology was found to over-predict the emissions and was not easily applicable, requiring measurements of the fastest mile of wind during the time interval over which the stockpile was disturbed. More realistic estimates of the wind erosion can be derived from wind erosion models such as the Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) and the Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ). These models, however, are still fairly imprecise and require a substantial effort to use them.

The NPI emission factor also does not take into account differences in the climate, soil and ore type. In the Dampier upgrade study (SKM 2003) based on emission testing in 1998 (SKM 1998),

the PM10 emission rate for the main live stock yards was determined using the following equation:

⎛ 2 ⎞ − 37 ⎜ ⎛ WST ⎞ ⎟ E ×= WS 1102.5 − ⎜ ⎟ for WS10 > WST; wind ⎜ ⎜WS ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎠

Ewind = 0 for WS10 ≤ WST

Where: WST is the threshold for wind erosion in m/s, taken to be 7.5 m/s (SKM 2003) and SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 23 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SlfM

2 Ewind is the PM10 emissions (g/m /s)

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 24 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

7. Dispersion Modelling

This chapter describes the model used to predict ground level concentrations from the derived emission rates and meteorological data.

7.1 Modelling Approach Air quality impacts from the port handling facilities have been modelled using the Victorian EPA’s AUSPLUME computer dispersion model (Version 6). It is a steady state model, and assumes that over time, the average concentration distribution of the plume is Gaussian. AUSPLUME has recently been upgraded to enable a more rigorous treatment of atmospheric dust dispersion than the previous versions. AUSPLUME is one of the primary models for assessing impacts from industrial sites in Australia.

7.2 Ausplume Modelling The AUSPLUME (version 6.0) dispersion model was used, along with site representative

meteorological data for the year July 2004 to June 2005, to predict the dispersion of PM10 and TSP within an area representative of nearest receptors within the region. The dust concentration at a number of discrete receptor locations (representing sensitive receptors) has also been modelled. An AUSPLUME output file typical of those used in this assessment is presented in Appendix A. The main model options and assumptions used are listed below:

meteorological data was taken from an annual file of hourly observations from Port Hedland Airport;

rural dispersion options;

contour receptors on a Cartesian grid of 0.5 km spacing;

assumption of no terrain;

dry deposition included; and

average roughness length of 0.1 m, to simulate the average over sea and land.

7.2.1 Grid System AUSPLUME was configured to predict the ground-level concentrations on a 0.5 km rectangular grid. A modelling domain 19 km (easting) by 12 km (northing) was used. A 0.5 km grid was chosen to restrict the duration of model runs, whilst using the particle deposition algorithm. It is predicted that this grid mesh will not capture near source maxima, but will be sufficient to accurately estimate dust impacts at locations further from the sources, including the township of Port Hedland.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 25 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

7.2.2 Model Terrain Due to the relatively flat terrain in the area modelled, the model was run without incorporating terrain effects. In addition, any terrain effects would not be significant compared to the uncertainties in source emission estimates.

7.2.3 Time Series Meteorological Data The AUSPLUME model requires time series meteorological data including one hour averaged values of:

wind speed and direction;

ambient air temperature;

Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class; and

atmospheric mixing height.

This data was derived from meteorological measurements taken at Port Hedland airport by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) for the year 2004-2005.

Wind speed and direction at 10 m above ground level (agl) was obtained from wind data collected at 30 minute intervals by the automatic weather station. A summary of the wind records is presented in Figure 7-1. The seasonal variation in winds is presented from Figure 7-2 through to Figure 7-5. Seasonal wind pattern variations are evident in Port Hedland (as measured by the Bureau of Meteorology at the Port Hedland Airport). The predominant winds are east-south easterly, occurring primarily in the “winter” months, and north westerly winds occurring primarily in the “summer” months. Inter-annual variations in the wind flow across the region can be expected. However, the distinct seasonal pattern described is well established.

Ambient air temperature was obtained from the surface (approximate 1.2 m agl) measurements at the airport.

Atmospheric stability categories were determined using the net radiation index method, or Turner’s method as described in USEPA (1998). This estimates stability from solar altitude, wind speed and cloud observations. Wind speed was derived from the hourly wind speed and cloud observations, with solar angle calculated from standard algorithms.

Mixing heights were estimated from surface observations using wind speed and stability class estimates to determine the Monin-Obukhov length and surface friction velocity. From these the mechanical mixing heights were computed using the methods recommended by NSW EPA (2005). This is an approximate measure particularly during the day but is considered to be adequate for

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 26 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

modelling for surface releases of dust, given that only 24-hour and longer averages are required. For elevated sources such as tall stacks and where hourly average concentrations are predicted more accurate methods are recommended (NSW EPA 2005).

A summary of the stability, wind speeds, and mixing heights of this data is given in Appendix B.

NORTH

15%

12%

3% WEST EA ST

WIND SPEED (m/s)

>= 11.1 8.8 - 11.1 5.7 - 8.8 SOUTH 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 - 3.6 0.5 - 2.1 Calms: 0.00%

Figure 7-1 - Annual Wind Rose for Port Hedland Airport for the Year 2004/05

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 27 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

NORTH NORTH

20% 20%

16% 16%

12% 12%

8% 8%

4% 4% WEST EAST WEST EAST

WIND SPEED WIND SPEED (m/s) (m/s)

>= 11.1 >= 11.1 8.8 - 11.1 8.8 - 11.1 5.7 - 8.8 5.7 - 8.8 SOUTH SOUTH 3.6 - 5.7 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 - 3.6 2.1 - 3.6 0.5 - 2.1 0.5 - 2.1 Calms: 0.00% Calms: 0.00%

Figure 7-2 Summer wind rose Figure 7-3 Autumn wind rose

NORTH NORTH

20% 20%

16% 16%

12% 12%

8% 8%

4% 4% WEST EAST WEST EAST

WIND SPEED WIND SPEED (m/s) (m/s)

>= 11.1 >= 11.1 8.8 - 11.1 8.8 - 11.1 5.7 - 8.8 5.7 - 8.8 SOUTH SOUTH 3.6 - 5.7 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 - 3.6 2.1 - 3.6 0.5 - 2.1 0.5 - 2.1 Calms: 0.00% Calms: 0.00%

Figure 7-4 Winter wind rose Figure 7-5 Spring wind rose

7.2.4 Dry Depletion Method Particles settling under gravity are subject to dry deposition. For this option, particle size distribution data and the particle density for each size fraction is required. AUSPLUME then calculates a settling velocity and a deposition velocity for each of these size categories. The

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 28 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

settling velocity causes an elevated plume to "tilt" towards the surface as it travels downwind, while the deposition velocity is used to calculate the flux of matter deposited at the surface. Plume depletion allows material to be removed from the plume as it is deposited on the surface.

As the plume of airborne particles is transported downwind, such deposition near the surface reduces the concentration of particles in the plume, and thereby alters the vertical distribution of the remaining particles. Furthermore, the larger particles will also move steadily nearer the surface at a rate equal to their gravitational settling velocity. As a result, the plume centreline height is reduced, and the vertical concentration distribution is no longer Gaussian.

Version 5 or later versions of AUSPLUME employ the deposition algorithm used in the USEPA model ISC3. This algorithm also tilts the plume downwards at an angle which depends on the particle settling velocities but now uses a better method for estimating deposition at the ground (dry deposition).

The particle size distribution for the Port Hedland dust modelling was taken as the same as that given in SKM (2002) for Port Hedland and is presented in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 – TSP and PM10 Particle Size Distribution

Mid Range Particle Mass Fraction Size (µm) PM10 TSP 1 0.30 0.11 4 0.27 0.09 7 0.23 0.08 9 0.20 0.07 12 0.13 19 0.13 26 0.13 35 0.13 45 0.13

7.2.5 Dispersion Curves Horizontal dispersion of plumes can be determined within Ausplume according to Pasquill stability classes or through the standard deviation in wind direction known as sigma theta (σθ). The latter is preferred where observations are available, as sigma theta is a direct measure of horizontal dispersion and the resultant lateral dispersion coefficient will be a continuous function, not discrete curves. In the absence of sigma theta measurements for Port Hedland, horizontal dispersion was determined using the Pasquill Gifford curves which are applicable to surfaces releases.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 29 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

7.2.6 Sensitive Receptors For the purpose of this study dust concentrations are modelled at five discrete receptors within the region. Names and locations of these receptor locations are presented in Table 7-2. The Harbour and Hospital locations were selected to represent the existing BHPBIO ambient dust monitoring sites and are used in the model validation process. The primary school in the suburb of Pretty Pool was chosen to represent the eastern end of Port Hedland as this site represents the most sensitive receptor in this immediate area. A receptor was also assigned to Wedgefield. Although this area is classified as a light industrial area there are residents within the precinct. While the consideration of potential impacts on the community of South Hedland was outside the scope of the study, a sensitive receptor location at the High School location in South Hedland was included as a reference point for this area.

Table 7-2 – Sensitive receptor locations for model interpretation

Sensitive Receptor Location Easting Northing Harbour Monitor 664350 7753240 Hospital Monitor 665870 7753420 Primary School (Pretty Pool) 670631 7754008 High School (South Hedland) 666600 7743439 Wedgefield 665526 7747107

7.2.7 Dust Emission Data The dust sources detailed in Table 6-1 were modelled as volume sources because investigations by SKM have highlighted potential issues with the particle deposition algorithms when using ‘area’ sources. Converting ‘area’ sources into ‘volume’ sources also has the added bonus of decreasing the model run time.

Emission rates for all sources were varied on an hourly basis using the estimated hourly throughput rates for each process provided by the site operator. These were then used to provide a variable emission rate file for input to the AUSPLUME model.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 30 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

8. Predicted Ground Level Dust Concentrations

8.1 Accuracy of Results With any modelling there is uncertainty in the predictions due to the assumptions made by the model and uncertainties in the input data. For this assessment it is considered that the greatest cause of uncertainty is in the emission estimates, which are considered to be at best within a factor of two and possibly slightly conservative. This uncertainty should be kept in mind when interpreting the model results.

8.2 Maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations

Comparisons between the predicted PM10 concentrations from the base scenario, 2010 future development scenario, and 2015-2020 future development scenario at the Harbour and Hospital monitors are presented in Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 respectively, and the maximums are summarised in Table 8-1. Figure 8-3, Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5 shows this comparison in the form of concentration contours for the base case scenario and two future scenarios, respectively.

Table 8-1 - Comparison of predicted PM10 concentrations in Port Hedland

3 Statistic Maximum 24-hour PM10 Average (μg/m )

Base operation 2010 Future 2015-20 Future 2004/2005 Development Development

Harbour Monitor 147 153 153

Hospital Monitor 128 81 72

Primary School (Pretty Pool) 63 63 63

High School (South Hedland) 63 63 63

Wedgefield 63 67 69

The impact of the increased tonnage through the port area of Port Hedland is an increase in the maximum PM10 concentration at the Harbour monitoring site for both the 2010 future development scenario and the 2015-2020 future development scenario. The remaining statistics however show that it is predicted that there will be a reduction in ground level concentrations.

A decrease at the Hospital monitoring site is predicted for both future development scenarios. The

Wedgefield modelled receptor location shows a relatively small increase in PM10 concentrations for the two future scenarios. There is no predicted change to the maximum PM10 concentrations at the Pretty Pool Primary School and South Hedland Senior High School receptors.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 31 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

BHPBIO decommissioning its old Goldsworthy stockyard facilities on Finucane Island and replacing it with new stockyard facilities;

the ceasing of all crushing and screening operations at the BHPBIO Nelson Point operations;

the decommissioning of certain stackers/reclaimers and transfer stations at Nelson Point (BHPBIO 2006); and

the PHPA relocating high dust emitting operations away from Berth 1 to the proposed Utah Point operations. 3 When compared to ambient criteria, (Section 2.2.3), the PM10 criterion of 50 μg/m (24 hr average) is not achieved in the base case or future scenarios.

160

140

Existing (2004/2005) 120 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 100

60 Concentration (ug/m

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile Average

Figure 8-1 Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Harbour monitoring site

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 32 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

160

140

Existing (2004/2005) 120 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 100

60 Concentration (ug/m

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile Average

Figure 8-2 - Predicted 24-hour average PM10 at the Hospital monitoring site

Figure 8-3 Base Case Scenario – modelled maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 33 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Figure 8-4 2010 Scenario – predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations

Figure 8-5 2015-2020 Scenario – predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 ground level concentrations SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 34 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

8.3 Maximum 24 hour TSP concentrations Comparisons between the predicted TSP concentrations from the base scenario, 2010 future development scenario, and 2015-20 future development scenario at the Harbour and Hospital monitors are presented in Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7, and are summarised in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 - Comparison of predicted TSP concentrations in Port Hedland

The impact of the increased tonnage through the port of Port Hedland is an initial decrease in the maximum TSP concentration at the Harbour monitoring site for the 2010 future development scenario, however this turns to a slight increase with the 2015-2020 future development scenario.

A decrease at the Hospital monitoring site is predicted for both future development scenarios.

Similar to the PM10 results, the contributing factors to the decrease between the existing (2004/2005) operations and the 2010 future development at the Harbour and Hospital monitor locations is considered to be due to a combination of factors including:

BHPBIO decommissioning its old Goldsworthy stockyard facilities on Finucane Island and replacing it with new stockyard facilities;

the cessation of all crushing and screening operations at the BHPBIO Nelson Point operations;

the decommissioning of certain stackers/reclaimers and transfer stations at Nelson Point (BHPBIO 2006); and

the PHPA relocating high dust emitting operations away from Berth 1 to the proposed Utah Point operations. When compared to ambient criteria, (Section 2.2.3), the TSP criterion of 150 μg/m3 (24 hr average) is not achieved in the base case or future scenarios.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 35 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

400

350

Existing (2004/2005) 300 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 250

200

150 Concentration (ug/m

100

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile 70 Percentile Average

Figure 8-6 - Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Harbour monitoring site

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 36 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

400

350

Existing (2004/2005) 300 Future - 2010 Future - 2015/2020 ) 3 250

200

150 Concentration (ug/m

100

0 Maximum 99 Percentile 95 Percentile 90 Percentile 70 Percentile Average

Figure 8-7 - Predicted 24-hour average TSP at the Hospital monitoring site

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 37 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

9. Conclusions

9.1 TSP and PM10

This report presents an assessment of the impact of dust (TSP and PM10) on Port Hedland, as a result of future development in the port area. This assessment has used emission estimates from the existing operations for the base case scenario, and includes background dust concentrations. The two future scenarios (2010 and 2015-2020) have used forecasted predictions and proposed development information to develop emission estimates for these scenarios (as known at 1 March 2007). Revised forecasts and proposals announced after this date are not considered in this assessment.

Using this emission data, along with annual meteorological data from Port Hedland and the

Victorian EPA guassian plume program AUSPLUME (ver 6), concentrations of both PM10 and TSP were predicted within the modelling domain. These predictions show that:

The modelled maximum TSP concentrations at the Harbour monitoring site are predicted to decrease for the 2010 future development scenario, however this turns to a slight increase with the 2015-2020 future development scenario.

The maximum PM10 and TSP concentrations at the Hospital monitoring site are predicted to decrease for both the 2010 and 2015-2020 future development scenarios.

The Wedgefield modelled receptor location shows a relatively small increase in PM10 concentrations for the two future scenarios, but no change in the modelled TSP concentrations. SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 38 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

The future development scenarios used in this assessment predict a general improvement in dust concentrations at the Hospital monitoring site. This is due to the current operations at PHPA Berth 1 being transferred to the proposed Utah Point development and improvements in BHPBIO dust management. What has not been considered is the continued future use of PHPA Berth 1 for un-bagged product (ores).

Dust emissions from the increasing number of vehicle movements, particularly as a result of the proposed Utah Point development, are not included in this modelling assessment. Once final details for proposed development are available, a more detailed assessment of the impact of increased traffic volumes is recommended.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 39 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

10. References

BHPBIO 2006. Revision of the Dust Management Program for Finucane Island and Nelson Point Operations: Section 46 Amendments to Ministerial Statement 433. (http://ironore.bhpbilliton.com)

DEH 2001. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 2.3. Department of Environment and Heritage, December 2001.

FMG 2005. Pilbara Iron Ore and Infrastructure Project, Stage B East-West Railway and Mine Sites PER. Prepared by Environ Australia Pty Ltd for Fortescue Metal Group.

National Pollutant Inventory 1999. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Fugitive Emissions. (http://www.npi.gov.au/handbooks/approved_handbooks/ffugitive.html)

National Pollutant Inventory 2001. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining, Version 2.3. (http://www.npi.gov.au/handbooks/approved_handbooks/mining.html)

NSW DEC 2005. Approved methods and guidance for the modelling and assessment of air pollutants in NSW. NSW Environment Protection Authority. http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/ammodelling05361.pdf Accessed: 09/11/06.

th Pitts O. 2000. Fugitive PM10 Emission Factors. In Conference Proceedings of the 15 International Clean Air & Environmental Conference. Sydney Australia, 26-30 November 2000.

SKM 2003. Aggregated Emissions Inventory for the Pilbara Airshed. Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia.

SKM 2005. Assessment of Fugitive Dust Emissions from HDMS Proposed Port Facilities at Port Hedland: Modelling Assessment. Report prepared for Hope Downs Management Services.

USEPA 2004. AP-42 Section 13.2.2 - Unpaved Roads Spreadsheet available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/related/c13s02-2.html

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 40 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 41 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Appendix A AUSPLUME Configuration File

1 ______

WSY - 165Mtpa with 04/05 met_BK

______

Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units microgram/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+06 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects None Plume depletion due to dry removal mechanisms included. Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? Yes Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Use the convective PDF algorithm? No

DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.100m Adjustment for wind directional shear None

PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No

and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used:

Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ______1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035

WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80

WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Rural" values (unless overridden by met. file)

AVERAGING TIMES 24 hours

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 42 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

______

1 ______

WSY - 165Mtpa with 04/05 met_BK

SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

______

VOLUME SOURCE: TS808

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662980 7753630 0m 10m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS800

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662845 7753615 0m 10m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS801

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662720 7753710 0m 7m 3m 3m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 43 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS704

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663240 7753315 0m 7m 3m 3m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS807

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662785 7753660 0m 8m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS810

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662910 7753480 0m 8m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS811

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 44 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663915 7753570 0m 7m 3m 3m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS812

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663965 7753560 0m 8m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: STK1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662860 7754150 0m 5m 50m 10m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: STK2

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663115 7754300 0m 5m 50m 10m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor. SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 45 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: REC1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663215 7754655 0m 5m 30m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: BROLL

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663380 7754810 0m 1m 1m 1m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: RLRP

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663075 7753795 0m 5m 20m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 46 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: FISL

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663840 7753300 0m 10m 40m 6m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: HBISL

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 664060 7753735 0m 10m 20m 6m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: FEL1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663110 7753235 0m 4m 4m 2m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: FEL2

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 47 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663230 7753175 0m 4m 4m 2m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: VEH1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663042 7754333 0m 1m 169m 0m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: VEH2

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663102 7753715 0m 1m 149m 0m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: STOCK1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663065 7754295 0m 10m 28m 3m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 48 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: STOCK2

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663137 7754608 0m 10m 28m 3m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: AREA1

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 662845 7753715 0m 1m 61m 0m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: HBIST

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663040 7753270 0m 10m 4m 2m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 49 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

VOLUME SOURCE: TS702

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elevation Height Hor. spread Vert. spread 663450 7752885 0m 10m 4m 4m

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second

Hourly multiplicative factors will be used with this emission factor.

Particle Particle Particle Mass Size Density fraction (micron) (g/cm3) ______0.3100 1.0 1.00 0.2600 4.0 1.00 0.2300 7.0 1.00 0.2000 9.0 1.00

______

1 ______

WSY - 165Mtpa with 04/05 met_BK

RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

______

DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres)

No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 664350 7753240 0.0 2.0 4 666600 7743439 0.0 2.0 2 670631 7754008 0.0 2.0 5 665526 7747107 0.0 2.0 3 665870 7753420 0.0 2.0

______

METEOROLOGICAL DATA : 2004/2005 fin. year Port Hedland Met, JDH (1/2/06), v

------

HOURLY VARIABLE EMISSION FACTOR INFORMATION ------

The input emission rates specfied above will be multiplied by hourly varying factors entered via the input file: I:\Aenv\Projects\AE03149\Technical\RGP5\165mtpa_WSYEmission.src For each stack source, hourly values within this file will be added to each declared exit velocity (m/sec) and temperature (K).

Title of input hourly emission factor file is: WSY, 165Mtpa, 04/05 Met Wv03028,(3/3/20)(TSG - J98 P165)

HOURLY EMISSION FACTOR SOURCE TYPE ALLOCATION ------

Prefix TS808 allocated: TS808 Prefix TS800 allocated: TS800 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 50 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Prefix TS801 allocated: TS801 Prefix TS704 allocated: TS704 Prefix TS807 allocated: TS807 Prefix TS810 allocated: TS810 Prefix TS811 allocated: TS811 Prefix TS812 allocated: TS812 Prefix STK1 allocated: STK1 Prefix STK2 allocated: STK2 Prefix REC1 allocated: REC1 Prefix BROLL allocated: BROLL Prefix RLRP allocated: RLRP Prefix FISL allocated: FISL Prefix HBISL allocated: HBISL Prefix FEL1 allocated: FEL1 Prefix FEL2 allocated: FEL2 Prefix VEH1 allocated: VEH1 Prefix VEH2 allocated: VEH2 Prefix STOCK1 allocated: STOCK1 Prefix STOCK2 allocated: STOCK2 Prefix AREA1 allocated: AREA1 Prefix HBIST allocated: HBIST Prefix TS702 allocated: TS702

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 51 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Appendix B Meteorological File Summary

Stability Classes

A B C D E F Total Number 61 552 1584 2960 2189 1414 8760 Percent 0.70 6.30 18.08 33.79 24.99 16.14

Stability Class by Wind direction A B C D E F N 0.5 7.1 23.8 46.6 11.0 11.0 NE 2.2 15.0 34.0 25.1 10.9 12.8 E 0.9 7.1 29.6 39.7 14.0 8.7 SE 1.0 6.9 20.3 29.9 30.0 11.9 S 1.3 8.6 11.9 17.9 36.7 23.6 SW 0.7 7.6 14.6 10.5 31.8 34.7 W 0.3 1.9 6.5 29.7 40.4 21.1 NW 0.3 5.2 18.1 48.3 17.5 10.7

Stabilty Class by Hour of Day Hour A B C D E F 1 0 0 0 57 186 122 2 0 0 0 47 200 118 3 0 0 0 48 192 125 4 0 0 0 42 185 138 5 0 0 0 34 180 151 6 0 0 0 40 178 147 7 0 10 71 197 57 30 8 0 37 230 98 0 0 9 3 118 132 112 0 0 10 7 112 109 137 0 0 11 27 99 193 46 0 0 12 15 73 228 49 0 0 13 7 52 256 50 0 0 14 2 40 240 83 0 0 15 0 8 66 291 0 0 16 0 3 47 315 0 0 17 0 0 12 353 0 0 18 0 0 0 313 47 5 19 0 0 0 213 117 35 20 0 0 0 140 149 76 21 0 0 0 94 172 99 22 0 0 0 85 156 124 23 0 0 0 62 180 123 24 0 0 0 54 190 121

Mixing heights Time (hr) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

0 m 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 3 16 62 63 56 48 58 81 104 100 84 46 24 9 5 6 3 o 2000 m 10 4 8 2 1 1 5 7 24 27 35 39 59 76 89 75 79 62 42 31 12 7 9 12 o 1800 m 10 6 5 11 8 9 7 8 29 29 34 40 57 53 48 57 57 56 48 24 29 18 8 10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 52 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

1400 to 1600 m 14 9 9 8 11 11 11 15 22 24 36 46 54 70 52 50 46 41 42 39 24 26 14 9 1200 to 1400 m 18 16 18 13 7 10 27 43 41 51 46 63 60 52 46 41 39 42 28 16 15 25 1000 to 1200 m 1 3 1 2 2 1 39 50 52 50 69 63 52 28 27 20 26 18 3 3 3 2 800 to 1000 m 3 4 4 3 4 6 51 61 76 55 39 29 19 17 11 9 12 8 4 3 2 2 600 to 800 m 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 91 47 39 22 17 8 6 7 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 400 to 600 m 0 1 0 1 0 0 43 58 31 15 12 8 6 2 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 200 to 400 m 122 125 125 121 126 116 48 20 23 13 7 4 2 3 1 1 0 39 90 103 113 106 1 0 to 200 m 186 193 193 202 205 209 65 9 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 62 122 158 174 1

Wind Occurence Matrix

Speed N NE E SE S SW W NW Total (m/s)

<0.5 (calm) 0.86 0.5 - 1.9 0.53 0.24 0.42 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.79 0.47 4.50 2.0 - 3.9 2.35 1.16 2.07 4.57 4.65 5.42 5.61 3.93 29.75 4.0 - 5.9 4.02 1.18 2.96 5.35 3.56 2.45 6.82 5.53 31.86 6.0 - 7.9 3.93 0.82 2.31 2.23 0.62 0.51 2.44 5.66 18.52 8.0 - 9.9 2.50 0.57 1.86 1.16 0.16 0.16 1.19 4.67 12.27 10.0 - 11.9 0.31 0.10 0.53 0.33 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.61 2.13 12.0 - 13.9 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.11 14.0 - 15.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.0 - 17.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >18.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 13.63 4.09 10.16 14.20 9.83 9.28 17.08 20.88 100.00

Speed N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW Total (m/s)

<0.5 (calm) 0.5 - 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 2.0 - 3.9 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.4 2.1 4.0 - 5.9 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.7 3.0 2.1 2.0 0.9 1.2 2.0 4.3 2.4 3.4 6.0 - 7.9 2.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.4 1.7 3.7 8.0 - 9.9 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.2 10.0 - 11.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 12.0 - 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.0 - 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 - 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 >18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 7.7 3.5 2.3 1.9 5.3 7.5 7.6 5.5 5.4 3.6 4.9 5.8 9.8 9.2 12.8

Ave wind speed = 5.16

Wind Speed Count Percentage range (m/s) (%) 0.00 - 0.99 135 1.54 1.00 - 1.99 334 3.81 2.00 - 2.99 857 9.78 3.00 - 3.99 1749 19.97 4.00 - 4.99 1439 16.43 5.00 - 5.99 1352 15.43 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 53 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

SlfM

6.00 - 6.99 959 10.95 7.00 - 7.99 663 7.57 8.00 - 8.99 759 8.66 9.00 - 9.99 316 3.61 10.00 - 10.99 142 1.62 11.00 - 11.99 45 0.51 12.00 - 12.99 8 0.09 13.00 - 13.99 2 0.02 14.00 - 14.99 0 0.00 15.00 - 15.99 0 0.00 16.00 - 16.99 0 0.00 17.00 - 17.99 0 0.00 18.00 - 18.99 0 0.00 19.00 - 19.99 0 0.00 20.00 - 20.99 0 0.00 21.00 - 21.99 0 0.00 22.00 - 22.99 0 0.00 23.00 - 23.99 0 0.00 24.00 - 24.99 0 0.00 25.00 - 25.99 0 0.00 26.00 - 26.99 0 0.00 27.00 - 27.99 0 0.00 28.00 - 28.99 0 0.00 29.00 - 29.99 0 0.00

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 54 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Slflt

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 55 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

Appendix C Metal Constituent of Dust

Metal concentrates (chromium and manganese) are stored and exported through the Port Hedland port. Heavy metals form part of the air toxics group of pollutants, having the potential to harm human health and the environment. An assessment of the environmental and health impact of the dust’s chemical constituents was outside of the scope this assessment. However this is an issue of interest and relevance to Port Hedland and requires further consideration beyond this study.

The major constituent of the anthropogenic dust in the port area of Port Hedland is expected to be iron ore, with small quantities of other mineral ores. The environmental impacts from iron ore processing and handling activities are related to potential bioaccumulation of trace metals through the trophic chain and to toxicological effects in aquatic organisms. The main human health effect of the iron ore dust is expected to be limited to respiratory effects (refer to DoH 2006).

Other major metal ores exported through Port Hedland are manganese ore (pyrolusite) and chromium ore (chromite), are exported through PHPA Berth 1. The manganese ore consists of a minimum 48% manganese, and the chromium ore consists of a minimum 42% chromium.

The percentage these ores contribute to the total atmospheric dust concentration in of Port Hedland varies greatly and is dependent on many of factors. Modelling predictions from the base case

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 56 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Dust Modelling Report

scenario at the Harbour and Hospital monitoring sites show that the contribution to the predicted

PM10 concentration, from the ore handling activities associated with PHPA Berth 1, can range between 0 to 94.2% and 0 to 68.1% respectively.

Exposure to high levels of manganese for a long time may cause adverse effects on the respiratory or nervous system. Breathing air containing 10 to 50 times higher levels of manganese than the normal average concentration may have some adverse effects on the protective functions in the lungs.

Chromium (III) compounds (Cr2O3 - chromite) are less toxic than chromium (VI) compound, and not considered to be carcinogenic. Chromium (III) compounds are not irritating or corrosive in normal conditions. However, in high levels there may be some toxic effects. People allergic to chromium may have respiratory problems after having exposure in air containing high level of chromium. Chromium (III) has moderate acute toxicity to aquatic life.

It is recommended that further study be undertaken to assess the potential health and environmental impacts of the metal constituents of atmospheric and deposited dust with the port area of Port Hedland.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\AppendixA1 - PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 57 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SliM

A.2 Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Sources) Report

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 113 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 114 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY (MOBILE SOURCES) REPORT

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY (MOBILE SOURCES) REPORT

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Sinclair Knight Merz Level 12, Mayfair House 54 The Terrace PO Box 10-283 Wellington New Zealand Tel: +64 4 473 4265 Fax: +64 4 473 3369 Web: www.skmconsulting.com

The SKM logo is a trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. © Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, 2006

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 2. Sources and Impact of Key Air Pollutants 2 2.1 Introduction 2 2.2 Sulfur Dioxide 2 2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen 2 2.4 Carbon Monoxide 3 2.5 Particulate Matter 3 2.6 Volatile Organic Compounds 4 3. Mobile Sources 5 3.1 Motor Vehicles 5 3.1.1 Introduction 5 3.1.2 Data Collection and Information Sources 5 3.1.3 Emission Estimation 6 3.1.3.1 General Approach 6 3.1.3.2 Relative VKT per Vehicle Category 6

3.1.3.3 Emission Factors for NOx and Total VOCs 9

3.1.3.4 Emission Factors for PM10 and SO2 10 3.1.4 Comparison to Other Studies 10 3.2 Aircraft 12 3.2.1 Introduction 12 3.2.2 Emission Estimation 12 3.2.3 Data Collection and Information Sources 13 3.2.4 Emission Estimation 13 3.2.5 Comparison to Other Studies 14 3.3 Commercial Shipping 15 3.3.1 Introduction 15 3.3.2 Data Collection and Information Sources 16 3.3.3 Emission Estimation 16 3.3.3.1 Commercial Shipping 16 3.3.4 Emission Estimates 17 3.3.5 Comparison to Other Studies 18 3.4 Aggregated Emissions 19 3.4.1 Comparison to Other Studies 22 3.5 Discussion of Emissions 22 4. Summary 23

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE i Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

5. References 24

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Port Hedland region showing location of vehicle counts (Vipac 2007) 8

Figure 3-2 Port Hedland region showing location of vehicle counts (Vipac 2007) 9

Figure 3-3 Motor Vehicle Emissions: Existing and Predicted values 10

Figure 3-4 Aircraft Emissions: Existing and Predicted Values 14

Figure 3-5 Commercial shipping emissions at berth and in channel: existing and predicted 18

Figure 3-6 Aggregated Emissions of all Motor Sources 19

Figure 3-7 NOx Existing emissions (kg/yr) 20

Figure 3-8 NOx 2010 Predicted emissions (kg/yr) 20

Figure 3-9 NOx 2015-2020 Predicted emissions (kg/yr) 20

Figure 3-10 SO2 Existing emissions (kg/yr) 21

Figure 3-11 SO2 2010 Predicted emissions (kg/yr) 21

Figure 3-12 SO2 2015-202 Predicted emissions (kg/yr) 21

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE ii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type Draft Rev A 20/06/07 J Harper D Tuxford 28/07/07 Draft Internal Review Draft Rev B 28/07/07 D Tuxford D Tuxford 06/09/07 Draft Client Review

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to Draft Electronic 1 Jon Harper Draft Electronic 1 Ross Atkin (DOIR)

Printed: 26 May 2008

Last saved: 12 December 2007 02:34 PM

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Air & Odour Assessment\Mobile emissions File name: report\R10 Mobile Emisisons AppendA2.doc

Author: Claire Delides

Project manager: Jon Harper

Name of organisation: Department of Industry and Resources

Name of project: Port Hedland Cumulative Study

Name of document: Mobile emissions inventory

Document version: Draft

Project number: Wv03265

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE iii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Background The Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) has commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake a study to assess the cumulative environmental effects of future port expansions on the Port Hedland area.

Port Hedland is located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and is one of the main export ports for iron ore in Australia. These export facilities are located immediately adjacent to the town of Port Hedland. During the 2004-2005 financial year approximately 108.5 million tonnes (Mt) of commodity was exported through these facilities comprising 103.3 Mt of iron ore, 3.6 Mt of salt with the remaining tonnage being manganese, chromite and copper.

Further expansions are currently planned for existing port operations and new proponents. This is expected to dramatically increase the tonnage through the port. This increase in tonnage has the potential to greatly increase the levels of airborne contaminants and impact upon the community of Port Hedland. This emission inventory is one component of the study and is designed to gain an understanding of potential changes in diffuse emissions from the main mobile emission sources in the study region. For this assessment forecasted growth data and proposed developments as of the 1 March 2007 were used. Revised forecasts and proposals described after this date are not considered in this assessment.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 1 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

2. Sources and Impact of Key Air Pollutants

2.1 Introduction The sources of air pollution are diverse and may be either emitted directly to the atmosphere or undergo chemical changes in the air. The effects of air pollutants on human health range from mild irritation of the airways to damage of major organs such as the heart or lungs. Some air pollutants (for example ozone, sulfur dioxide) may also exacerbate existing conditions such as asthma or bronchitis. The level and duration of human exposure to a particular air pollutant are linked to the health effects observed. Some air pollutants such as lead gradually accumulate in the body, causing health effects after several months or years of exposure to low ambient concentrations. Other air pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide, cause serious health effects after several hours or days of exposure to high ambient concentrations (DEP 2000).

This section highlights the pollutants of concern from mobile emission sources. Particular attention is given to the potential impact of these pollutants on human health and the environment.

2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colourless gas with a sharp irritating odour. Sulfur dioxide acts directly on the respiratory system triggering rapid responses within minutes. It can contribute to, or exacerbate respiratory illnesses (such as asthma or bronchitis), especially in elderly or young people. Sulfur dioxide has also been linked with the aggravation of existing heart and lung diseases (USEPA 2004). Sulfur dioxide can attach itself to small ambient particulates, which can then be inhaled deep into the lungs; this can intensify the health effects of sulfur dioxide. In addition to these health effects on humans, sulfur dioxide can also have detrimental effects on the environment. Australian

studies indicate that some crop yields may be affected by prolonged exposure to SO2, and some trees may suffer leaf damage. Sulfur dioxide can contribute to the formation of acid rain, and damage ecosystems, and buildings.

2.3 Oxides of Nitrogen

Oxides of nitrogen is the collective term for nitrogen monoxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and

nitrous oxide (N2O). These compounds are produced from combustion of fossil fuels, primarily from automobiles and electricity production. The majority of air emissions are in the form of nitrogen monoxide (NO), which can be transformed to NO2.

Nitrogen monoxide is colourless and odourless but can oxidise in the atmosphere to form NO2 and

NO3. Nitrogen dioxide is a pungent, brown, acidic, highly corrosive gas that has significant effects on the environment and to human health. It irritates the lungs and may lower immunity to

respiratory infections. Exposure to high levels of NO2 causes severe lung injury. NO2 has been

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 2 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

demonstrated to increase the effects of exposure to other pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide and inhalable particles.

Vegetation is also adversely affected by exposure to NOx, in the form of retarded growth rates and crop yields. N2O is considered to be a greenhouse gas, trapping long wave radiation emitted by the earth and warming the atmosphere. Oxides of nitrogen are also some of the main contributors to

ozone production, which, at ground level, is a highly poisonous substance; when NOx and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight, the formation of smog may ensue. Oxides of nitrogen can also contribute to acid rain by the formation of nitric acid in airborne water droplets.

2.4 Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, almost odourless, and tasteless gas. It forms when organic or carbon materials are burnt with insufficient quantities of oxygen (USEPA 2004). The single largest anthropogenic source of carbon monoxide worldwide is motor vehicles.

Carbon monoxide is associated with a number of potential human health impacts. It is absorbed via the lungs, enters the bloodstream and reduces the blood’s ability to deliver oxygen to organs and tissues. Carbon monoxide is poisonous to humans at high exposure levels. Exposure to high levels of carbon monoxide may result in increased incidence and duration of angina pectoris (chest pain sometimes leading to heart attack), visual impairment, reduced motor skills, poor learning ability, difficulty in performing complex tasks, and low birth weight (DEP 2000).

2.5 Particulate Matter Suspended particulate matter can be defined by its size, chemical composition or source. Particles can also be defined by whether they are primary particles, such as a suspension of the fine fraction of soil by wind erosion, sea salt from evaporating sea spray, pollens, and soot particles from incomplete combustion; or secondary particles such as those formed from the gas to particle conversion of sulfate and nitrate particles from sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.

Typically, particulate matter has been characterised by its size as measured by collection devices specified by regulatory agencies. The particulate size ranges specified in ambient air criteria are

total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate matter below 10 μm (PM10) and particulate matter

below 2.5 μm (PM2.5).

Total suspended particulates (TSP) are typically associated with adverse aesthetic effects rather than health effects. These particles tend to settle out on surfaces causing soiling and discolouration (DEP 2000).

The health effect of particulates in the PM10 and below range is mainly the exacerbation of respiratory problems. Inhalable particles are associated with increases in respiratory illnesses such

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 3 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, with an increase in risk related to their size, chemical composition and concentration. Particles in the PM10 size fraction have been strongly associated with increases in the daily prevalence of respiratory symptoms, hospital admissions and mortality. The population that is most susceptible include the elderly, people with existing respiratory and/or cardiovascular problems and children (NEPC 2002). There is some evidence to suggest that

particles within the PM10 fraction, such as PM2.5 and PM1.0, might be more deleterious to health than other size fractions (DEC 2000).

Increasing evidence suggests that PM2.5 may be strongly implicated as the major influence on the health effects associated with PM10. Particles in the PM2.5 size fraction can be inhaled more deeply into the lungs than PM10, and have been associated with health effects similar to those of PM10. No lower limit for the onset of adverse health effects has yet been observed.

2.6 Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a group of carbon based chemicals with a high vapour pressure. Methane, fuels, oilbased paints, solvents, wood preservers, benzene, toluene, xylene and perchloroethylene (the principal dry cleaning solvent) are all VOCs. These chemicals can react

with NOx in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Many of these chemicals are also hazardous in their own right, for example Benzene is known to be carcinogenic, while others can cause reactions such as coughing or eye irritations.

The introduction of catalytic converters has reduced VOC emissions from automobiles; however, they still represent the largest contributor to VOC production (USEPA 2002).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 4 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

3. Mobile Sources

Emissions occur from mobile sources due to combustion processes. These processes result in a range of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), PM10, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and TSP, which are considered in this study. The types of mobile sources addressed in this study include heavy-duty motor vehicles, aircraft and commercial shipping.

3.1 Motor Vehicles 3.1.1 Introduction Emissions from motor vehicles arise as the by-products of the combustion process and from evaporation of the fuel itself. The combustion process results in a range of pollutants including

VOCs, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10 and trace metals such as lead. Evaporative emissions result in VOCs and small amounts of lead, and may occur through diurnal, running, hot soak and resting losses. In this study only exhaust emissions and not evaporative emissions are considered.

The principal factors affecting vehicle emissions are:

vehicle type;

type and composition of the fuel used by a vehicle;

age of vehicle; and

type of roads on which a vehicle travels.

The approach used for the estimate of motor vehicle aggregated emissions closely follows the approach documented in the EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Motor Vehicles (Environment Australia 2000). Emission estimates have been prepared for the years 2004-2005, year 2010, and year 2015-2020 (corresponding to the project development scenarios) for the following vehicle classes and fuel types:

diesel heavy duty vehicles; and

diesel road trains.

Light vehicles were not considered in this emission estimate.

3.1.2 Data Collection and Information Sources Data collected for the estimation of emissions included:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 5 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

traffic volumes obtained for the Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Assessment Study (Noise Study) prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd. (refer to email David Wilkins to Nathan Robertson, 17 May 2007, received 1630 hrs); and

EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Motor Vehicles (Environment Australia 2000) with adjustments to reflect WA Standards for fuel sulfur content.

3.1.3 Emission Estimation 3.1.3.1 General Approach The approach used for the estimation of motor vehicle aggregated emissions closely follows the approach documented in the EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Motor Vehicles (Environment Australia, 2000). The methodology estimates vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and applies emission rates for the various NPI substances emitted. The broad steps followed for this study were.

traffic volume estimates for this study were located on each major road within in the Port Hedland study area;

traffic volumes were sub-divided into road trains (Austroads 94 Classes 10-12) and heavy vehicles (Austroads 94 Classes 3-9) assuming the petrol type to be diesel;

VKT estimates were calculated based on the traffic volumes and length of roads;

emission rates were developed for the representative vehicle class, fuel type, and road type categories. The road type in this study was assumed to be arterial; and

emission rates were applied based on the calculated VKT.

3.1.3.2 Relative VKT per Vehicle Category Traffic volume proportions were obtained from by the Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland, Noise Study prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd. Only the heavy vehicles (Austroads 94 Classes 3-9) and road trains (Austroads 94 Classes 10-12) were considered. Traffic volumes are displayed in Table 3-1 along with predicted traffic volumes.

A spatial data set of road segments was used as the basis for the location of traffic activity information. Segments were terminated at intersections to allow data (specifically counts) to differ either side of the intersections.

A manual checking and adjustment of traffic volumes was then carried out to match counts between adjacent road segments. This overall process was used to allocate a traffic volume for all road segments in the study area. Using the traffic volume for each road segment and knowing the length of each road segment, the appropriated VKT was calculated.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 6 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Table 3-1 Traffic Volumes

Location VKT/day/vehicle 2004-2005 2010 2015-2020 Vehicle Type Number (km) Numbers Numbers Numbers 1 Heavy Vehicles 2.63 745 745 1118 Road Trains 2.63 408 408 612 2 Heavy Vehicles 0.236 565 570 855 Road Trains 0.236 366 1188 1782 4 Heavy Vehicles 3.84 768 768 1152 Road Trains 3.84 384 1008 1512 7 Heavy Vehicles 2.76 160 170 255 Road Trains 2.76 180 372 558 8 Heavy Vehicles 0.506 573 573 860 Road Trains 0.506 378 1002 1503 9 Heavy Vehicles 6.74 185 185 278 Road Trains 6.74 276 900 1350 11 Heavy Vehicles 1.85 1180 1180 1770 Road Trains 1.85 408 408 612 12 Heavy Vehicles 2.63 831 831 1247 Road Trains 2.63 408 408 612 13 Heavy Vehicles 3.44 496 496 744 Road Trains 3.44 408 408 612 15 Heavy Vehicles 12.6 305 305 458 Road Trains 12.6 216 1044 1566

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 7 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Figure 3-1 Port Hedland region showing location of vehicle counts (Vipac 2007)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 8 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Figure 3-2 Port Hedland region showing location of vehicle counts (Vipac 2007)

3.1.3.3 Emission Factors for NOx and Total VOCs The EET Manual describes a detailed methodology for the derivation of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emission factors for the various vehicle class, road type and fuel type categories.

The default values from Table 11 of the EET Manual for Aggregated Emission from Motor

Vehicles (Environment Australia 2000) have been used to estimate the emissions of NOx and VOCs. Only heavy duty vehicles have been considered using diesel petrol and arterial roads. Evaporative emissions from diesel have not been estimated in accordance with the EET manual due to the comparatively low evaporative emissions from diesel due to its low volatility.

The calculated emissions for NOx and VOCs are highlighted in Figure 3-3. From the graph, it can be seen that the NOx emissions are relatively high and increase at a greater rate than any of the other compounds emitted. VOCs are also seen to increase over time, but are seen to increase at a lesser rate than the NOx emissions.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 9 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

3.1.3.4 Emission Factors for PM10 and SO2

The default emission factors for particulate matter less than 10 µm (PM10) have been adopted unchanged from Table 13 of the EET Manual. Only heavy class vehicles were used when considering the emissions. Tyre and brake wear emissions have not been considered when calculating PM10 emissions. For the emission factors for SO2, Table 15 of the EET manual has been used with adjustments to reflect WA standards for fuel sulfur content.

The calculated emissions for PM10 and SO2 are highlighted in Figure 3-3. From the graph it can be

seen that SO2 emissions are relatively low due to the WA standards for fuel content. The SO2 emissions are not predicted to increase greatly over time. PM10 emissions are also relatively low, although tyre and brake wear emissions have not been considered in this assessment. What should also be considered when looking at this graph is that it only highlights the emissions from heavy vehicles and road trains and does not take into account light vehicles.

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

NOx 100,000 PM10 SO2 VOC 80,000 Emissions (kg/yr) Emissions 60,000

40,000

20,000

0 2004/2005 2010 2015 Year

Figure 3-3 Motor Vehicle Emissions: Existing and Predicted values

3.1.4 Comparison to Other Studies Comparisons of emissions between the Port Hedland study and the Pilbara and Bunbury airsheds are given in Table 3-3. These studies are quite different from the current study, for example, the Pilbara study used the August 2000 edition of the EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions for

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 10 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Motor Vehicles where the current version is the November 2000 edition; hence there is variation with some of the estimation techniques and calculations. Also, light vehicles have been considered in the other studies where as only heavy duty vehicle have been considered in this assessment.

Table 3-2 Comparison of populations and study area

Region Population Area (km2) Port Hedland (PH) 12,461 219 Pilbara 50,108 559,116 Bunbury 201,105 38,610 %PH of Pilbara 24.80% 0.04% %PH of Bunbury 6.20% 0.57%

The Port Hedland study area is much smaller than the airsheds of the Pilbara and Bunbury studies. Port Hedland is within the Pilbara airshed. To make a comparison justified, the percentage area of Port Hedland has been compared to the area of other studies as given in Table 3-2 and a percentage of the Port Hedland emissions has been taken from the total motor vehicle emissions in the other studies which is highlighted in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Comparison of motor vehicle emissions to other studies

Region NOx PM10 SO2 VOCs Port Hedland (2004-05) 68,551 5,984 281 10,349 Pilbara 711,000 27,500 75,300 401,000 Bunbury 5,460,000 145,000 103,000 4,250,000 %PH of Pilbara 9.64 21.76 0.37 2.58 %PH of Bunbury 1.26 4.13 0.27 0.24

The Port Hedland area is only 0.04% of the area taken for the Pilbara study, although it is more densely populated than many areas of the Pilbara. This small area contributes to approximately

10% of the total NOx emissions and over 20% of PM10 emissions. It also contributes 0.37% of the

SO2 emissions; this may be due to the decreased sulfur content in fuels and due to light vehicles not having been considered in this study.

The area of the Bunbury study is a lot smaller than that of the Pilbara, however, it is more densely populated, so it is expected that there would be a greater number of motor vehicles, which would explain the higher emissions. Port Hedland is a small fraction of the area and population of the Bunbury study area, which is why the emissions are a great deal lower than those for the Bunbury study area. Again it must be noted that light vehicles are not considered in the Port Hedland study.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 11 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

The three study areas are quite difficult to compare due to their great differences. What can be concluded is that the emissions from Port Hedland are quite significant taking into account the small area it encompasses.

3.2 Aircraft 3.2.1 Introduction Emissions from aircraft result from combustion processes in the engines, and vary with engine size and mode of engine use e.g. landing, takeoff, taxiing and approaching airstrips.

3.2.2 Emission Estimation Emissions from aeroplanes were calculated using a methodology derived from the best practice technique in the EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Aircraft (Environment Australia, 2001) with modifications to account for a difference in the idle and take-off times by aircraft in the Port Hedland area.

Emissions only include combustion products from the aircraft engines and do not include vehicles used at the airport, losses from fuel tanks and refuelling.

The best practice methodology outlined in the EET Manual considers the landing/take-off (LTO) cycle and the time in the various cycles. Emission estimates are made by:

determining the type and number of engines each aircraft has;

determining emission rates for each pollutant for each ‘flight’ mode, that is, approach, taxi/idle, take off and climb out for each engine type;

determining estimates of the time in mode for each aircraft type and airport;

for each flight mode, pollutant and airport the aircraft is in, multiplying the modal emission rate by the time in that mode. This is summed and multiplied by the number of engines to produce the emissions for that aircraft for that landing/take off cycle;

the emissions per aircraft type are obtained by multiplying by the number of landings/take-offs at each airport;

this is performed for each aircraft type; and

summing all the emissions.

The alternative default methodology uses emission factors for four aircraft fleet categories to simplify the emission estimates from the numerous aircraft types. Additionally the emissions are given for LTO cycles that simplify the four “flight” modes into one.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 12 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

For the Port Hedland area, the best practice methodology has been followed. That is, emissions have been calculated based upon individual modes within the LTO cycle and individual aircraft types, not the broad categories as in the default methodology. This approach was adopted, as the aircraft fleet at most of the airstrips was significantly different to the composite aircraft fleet used in the default methodology.

3.2.3 Data Collection and Information Sources Data required for the estimates includes:

location of airports, runways, landing and approach flight paths, and associated ground movements;

the number of landing/take off (LTO) cycles for each type of aircraft operating at each airport;

the prevalence of the different types of engines and numbers of engines used by each aircraft type; and

time spent in each operating mode (approach, taxi/idle, take off and climb out) for the airport.

3.2.4 Emission Estimation Emission factors for the LTO cycles were derived from the EET Manual for all engine types. Additional engine information for aircraft not detailed in the EET Manual was derived from scaling emissions from other similar aircraft by the engine power. Equation 3-1 was utilised when calculating the emissions.

∑ ∑ na × la, e × re, m × tm, a a e Equation 3-1 Em = 60 Where

Em = Annual emissions in an airport for mode m (ie. Approach, taxi/idle, takeoff or climbout) (kg/yr)

na = Number of engines of aircraft type a, kg/yr

la,e = Number of annual LTO cycles at an airport for aircraft type a with engine type e

re,m = Emission factor for engine type e and mode m, kg/hr

tm,a = Time in mode for aircraft type a, minutes

Time spent in each operating mode for all aircraft was scaled appropriately for Port Hedland airport and was not based on the default times given in the EET manual. This was done due to the default times being obtained from the Melbourne Airport, which is significantly larger and busier than any airstrip in the Port Hedland area. The estimates provided for the Port Hedland airport for climb-out and approach were very close to those of the default estimates, which would be expected as they are not considered to vary widely by location and the size of the airport. The airstrips provided

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 13 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

estimates for take-off that were longer than those listed in the default figures while the estimates for taxi/idle are much lower than those listed in the defaults. This reflects that there is limited congestion at the strips in the Port Hedland Airport.

The emissions that were considered from the aircraft were: HC, CO, NOx, SO2 and TSP. Most of the emissions are seen to be decreasing over time as shown in Figure 3-4. This is due to QANTAS changing their aircraft from the BAE 146-100/200 at the time the data was collected (2004-05) to the 717-200 whose engines emit less and has the capacity to carry approximately 20 extra passengers. As a result there may be more aircraft and more people over time, therefore the emissions would subsequently change due to a change in the aircraft engine type used and the quantity of aircraft. There is also the possibility that if there is a large increase in passengers, there would be more 737-aircraft instead of 717-200, however this possibility has not been implemented into the calculated predicted emission values.

8000

7000

6000 HC CO 5000 NOx SO2 TSP 4000

Emissions (kg/yr) 3000

2000

1000

0 2004/5 2010 2015 Year

Figure 3-4 Aircraft Emissions: Existing and Predicted Values

3.2.5 Comparison to Other Studies A comparison of the aircraft emissions from the Port Hedland airshed with the Bunbury and Pilbara emission studies is presented in Table 3-4. The emissions from aircraft from the Bunbury Regional airshed are much lower than the emissions from these studies. This is due to the Bunbury Regional airshed having a much lower number of landing/take offs per person per year than the other airports

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 14 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

and not having any commercial jets operating at any airports within the airshed. So even though the Port Hedland area may be very small, the airport itself is comparatively busy.

In the Bunbury Regional airshed the majority of airports are small strips that only cater for light aircraft, unlike other studies that include larger aircraft. No airstrips in the Bunbury Regional airshed have the potential to cater for jets, with the exception of the Bunbury Airport. This is why the emissions are rather low.

Table 3-4 Comparison of Aircraft Emissions to Other Studies

Region NOx SO2 HC CO Port Hedland (2004-05) 4,400 4,900 770 6,900 Pilbara 32,500 7,580 45,100 147,400 Bunbury 1,620 250 137,000 %PH of Pilbara 13.62% 65.20% 1.70% 4.67% %PH of Bunbury 273.33% 1976.98% 5.02%

The Pilbara airshed has approximately 22 airstrips, the two major airports being Port Hedland and

Karratha. Port Hedland has approximately 65% of the total SO2 aircraft emissions in the Pilbara area. This would be due to Port Hedland being one of the two major airports in the region and the type of aircraft which are there. This also would explain the reasonably high emissions of NOx. Another reason why this percentage is high is due to the years in which the comparisons have been made. For Port Hedland the years are 2004-05 where as the other studies have been undertaken in previous years when there may have been less aircraft.

The low emissions for HC and CO are due to the type of aircraft that are in each area. From the Pilbara study a comparison was made between the Pilbara airshed and the Perth airshed. A relationship was seen between aircraft types. It was seen that emissions were greatest from helicopters, accounting for 18% of CO emissions, 50% of VOC emissions, 51% of NOx emissions and 37% of SO2 emissions. In the Port Hedland region there are a comparatively low number of helicopters and an increase in helicopter numbers has not been taken into account for future emissions in the region. This would be one of the reasons for the difference in emissions.

3.3 Commercial Shipping 3.3.1 Introduction The EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Commercial Ships/Boats and Recreational Boats (Environment Australia 1999) defines ships as cargo ships, passenger ships, chemical tankers and naval ships. Commercial boats are defined as fishing boats, tug boats, work boats and passenger and cargo boats and other small commercial utility craft. Recreational and commercial boating was not considered in this study.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 15 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

3.3.2 Data Collection and Information Sources Data on commercial shipping were obtained from the Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA), including the number of each type of vessel (cargo, container, tanker, etc.), the harbour used and the time spent waiting and at berth for the 2004-05 financial year.

3.3.3 Emission Estimation Emissions from commercial shipping were calculated based on the prescribed methodology in the EET Manual (Environment Australia 1999) with a few variations to account for local differences. Equation 3-2 and Equation 3-3 were used to estimate emissions at berth and in a channel respectively.

Equation 3-2 Eb = tb × ∑(ni × ai) i

Where, Eb = Annual emission at Berth from commercial ships (kg/yr) tb = Average time of ships at berth (hr) ni = Number of commercial ships visiting the port each year in the tonnage range i (/yr) ai = Emission factor for auxiliary engines for ships in the tonnage range i (kg/hr)

dc Equation 3-3 Ec = × ∑{}ni × ()mi + ai vc i

Where, Ec = Annual emission from commercial ships in a channel (kg/yr) dc = Length of channel within the airshed (km) vc = Average speed of ships within the channel, (km/hr) ni = Number of commercial ships visiting the port each year in the tonnage range i (/yr) mi = Emission factor for main engines for ships in the tonnage range i (kg/hr) ai = Emission factor for auxiliary engines for ships in the tonnage range i (kg/hr)

3.3.3.1 Commercial Shipping Emission factors for commercial ships for various tonnage ranges are presented in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Emission Factors for Commercial Ships

Emission Factor (kg/hr)1 Substance < 1,000 1,000 – 5,000 5,000 – 10,000 – > 50,000 10,000 50,000 Main Engines Carbon 0.481 1.63 3.03 13.5 28.5 monoxide Oxides of 1.44 11.3 32.5 167 334 nitrogen Sulfur dioxide 0.432 2.59 35.0 127 254 TSP 0.0374 0.224 0.561 16.8 33.7

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 16 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Emission Factor (kg/hr)1 Substance < 1,000 1,000 – 5,000 5,000 – 10,000 – > 50,000 10,000 50,000 Total VOCs 0.174 0.6 1.13 3.41 6.82 Auxiliary Engines Carbon 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 monoxide Oxides of 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 nitrogen Sulfur dioxide 1.42 2.83 4.25 5.66 7.08 TSP 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.9 0.9 Total VOCs 0.436 0.436 0.436 0.436 0.436 Notes:

1) Source: Table 4 of EET Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Commercial Ships/Boats and Recreational Boats (Environment Australia 1999).

3.3.4 Emission Estimates The emissions for commercial shipping whilst at berth are considered in Figure 3-5. What can be interpreted from this figure is that both NOx and SO2 increase by a large amount each year, almost

doubling, causing potential problems from the amount of SO2 and NOx in the airshed. Auxillary engines are used whilst at berth and is considered to be the significant source of these emissions. In the channel both the auxiliary engines and the main engines are used. VOCs and TSP are seen to not increase by a great amount each year. When interpreting this graph, consideration must be taken that these emissions are not the total amount being emitted due to recreational and commercial boating not included in the assessment.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 17 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

NOx SO2 1,000,000 TSP

Emissions (kg/yr) Emissions VOCs

500,000

0 2004/5 2010 2015 Year

Figure 3-5 Commercial shipping emissions at berth and in channel: existing and predicted

3.3.5 Comparison to Other Studies Comparisons between the Port Hedland airshed and the Pilbara and Bunbury airsheds are given in

Table 3-6. The emissions of NOx, TSP, SO2 and VOCs from the Port Hedland airshed are seen to exceed those of the Bunbury airshed. This is due to Port Hedland receiving more ships and ships with a greater tonnage than those seen in the Bunbury study. Another reason is due to the data at Port Hedland being more recent than that of the Pilbara and Bunbury studies.

The emissions from Port Hedland in comparison with those of the Pilbara show that roughly an equal percentage of all emissions come from Port Hedland. This is due to the number of ports in the Pilbara airshed, with Dampier being a major port and Port Hedland being a significant port.

Table 3-6 Comparison of Commercial Shipping Emissions to Other Studies

Region NOx TSP SO2 VOCs Port Hedland (2004-05) 937,048 104,297 804,345 34,782 Pilbara 7,567,977 804,769 6,087,547 215,003 Bunbury 688,000 72,100 540,000 18,500 %PH of Pilbara 12.38% 12.96% 13.21% 16.18% %PH of Bunbury 136.20% 144.66% 148.95% 188.01%

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 18 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

3.4 Aggregated Emissions Figure 3-6 shows the total aggregated emissions of all motor sources. From this figure, it can be seen that the two major causes for concern are the emissions of NOx and of SO2, with both emissions increasing greatly over time. Commercial shipping is the greatest contributor of emissions, with limited controls known to be placed on fuel quality and content.

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000 NOx TSP SO2 VOCs 1,000,000 Emissions (kg/yr)

500,000

0 2004/5 2010 2015 Year

Figure 3-6 Aggregated Emissions of all Motor Sources

The dramatic increase in NOx and SO2 emissions can be attributed to the number of ships around Port Hedland. This can clearly be seen in Figure 3-7 to Figure 3-12 where the emissions from motor vehicles and aircraft are hardly visible in comparison to the total emissions coming from the shipping areas. Also visible from these figures is the major increase of emissions in the future, especially from shipping. Less visually obvious, but still present is the increase in vehicle emissions. The increase in emissions from motor vehicles is quite substantial but visually is not so obvious from these figures due to the emissions from shipping being disproportionately high.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 19 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Figure 3-7 NOx Existing emissions (kg/yr)

Figure 3-8 NOx 2010 Predicted emissions (kg/yr)

Figure 3-9 NOx 2015-2020 Predicted emissions (kg/yr)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 20 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Figure 3-10 SO2 Existing emissions (kg/yr)

Figure 3-11 SO2 2010 Predicted emissions (kg/yr)

Figure 3-12 SO2 2015-202 Predicted emissions (kg/yr)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 21 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

3.4.1 Comparison to Other Studies Table 3-7 shows the comparison between the Port Hedland airshed and the Pilbara and Bunbury airsheds. The area of the Port Hedland airshed is quite small, being 0.04% the area of Pilbara and 0.57% the Bunbury airshed area as seen in Table 3-2. The amount Port Hedland contributes

however is quite large, around 13% of the Pilbara airshed for total NOx, TSP and SO2. SO2 emissions are seen to be large in comparison to the Bunbury airshed. This is expected to be due to the amount of shipping in the Pilbara region where it is expected that there is limited restrictions to the amount of sulfur content in the fuels.

Table 3-7 Comparison of total mobile emissions to other studies

Region NOx TSP SO2 VOCs Port Hedland (04/5) 1,010,026 110,393 809,569 45,131 Pilbara 8,311,477 832,269 6,170,427 665,203 Bunbury 6,149,620 217,110 643,250 4,276,920 %PH of Pilbara 12.15% 13.26% 13.12% 6.78% %PH of Bunbury 16.42% 50.85% 125.86% 1.06%

3.4.2 Discussion of Emissions

High levels of NOx, CO, SO2 and particulate matter emissions are characteristics of large, slow- running marine diesel engines utilising high sulfur content fuel (Lu et al., 2007). Due to the large number of marine vessels that exist in the world’s oceans, the global emissions of NOx from ships constitute a significant fraction of total NOx emissions (>10%) (Lawrence and Crutzen, 1999). Emissions from port activities are estimated to account for about 4.5% of total shipping emissions

of SO2 (Streets et al. 1997). With an increase in industrialisation and globalisation, the emissions are estimated to increase at a rate of approximately 3% yr-1 (Evans et al.).

Generally, the cheapest grades of residual oil are being used to fuel many ships. These can contain as much as 5% sulfur, with the average being 2.8%, which can account for a significant source of air pollutants (Lu et al., 2007). This is high in comparison to the WA standard for sulfur in fuels being around 0.05%. In 1997, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutions from Ships approved a global cap of 4.5% on the sulfur content of marine fuel oils (Gupta 2005).

With greater emissions of sulfur, this may cause more sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere - the greater the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, the greater the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei. This would cause the clouds to appear brighter and may affect the Earth’s temperature slightly (Huebert 1999).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 22 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

4. Summary

From reviewing the existing and predicted values for emissions from the various motor sources, it can be seen that the concentration of some pollutants have the potential to cause issues in the future. Specifically, the data shows that:

Heavy-duty vehicles emissions are predicted to significantly increase in future. Emissions of

NOx are of most concern, almost doubling every 5 year period. This estimation does not take into account emissions from light vehicles.

Aircraft emissions are not considered to be a significant issue either now or in the future due to the more efficient engines predicted to be used. Also, larger aircraft may be used in the future instead of a greater number of aircraft to account for greater demand in use of this service.

Commercial shipping emissions are predicted to increase significantly in the Port Hedland

area, with the emissions of NOx and SO2 being of greatest concern.

There does not appear to be an enforced international standard for shipping fuel content, and hence the quality of the fuels used are expected to be the cheapest grades of residual oil (and less clean), which contribute significantly to the overall concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere.

The emissions calculated only take into account commercial shipping and do not take into account commercial boating or recreational boating and hence may be an under-estimate of total emissions.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 23 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

5. References

Environment Australia 1999. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Commercial Ships/Boats and Recreational Boats. Environment Australia, November 1999, Canberra.

Environment Australia 2001. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Aircraft, Version 2.1. Environment Australia, May 2001, Canberra.

Evans, M. and Esler, G. 2007. Ship Emissions: Impact and Parameterization (SHIP). http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~lecmje/SHIP/ship_grant.pdf (accessed 25/06/07)

Gupta, A.K., Gupta, S.K., and Patil, R.S. 2005. Environmental management plan for port and harbour projects. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy 7:133-141.

Huebert, B.J. 1999. Sulphur Emissions from Ships. Nature 400:713.

Lawrence, M.G., Crutzen, P.J. 1999. Influence of NOX emissions from ships on tropospheric photochemistry and climate. Nature 402:167-170.

Lu, G., Brook, J.R., Alfarra, M.R., Anlauf, K., Leaitch, W.R., Sharma, S., Wang, D., Worsnop, D.R., and Phinney, L. 2006. Identification and characterisation of inland ship plumes over Vancouver, BC. Atmospheric Environment 40:2767-2782.

National Environmental Protection Council (2002). Impact Statement for PM2.5 Variation: Setting a

PM2.5 Variation in Australia. http://www.ephc.gov.au/pdf/Air_Variation_PM25/draft_variation_is.pdf (accessed 25/06/07).

SKM 2003a. Aggregated Emissions Inventory for the Pilbara Airshed 1999/2000, Revision 2 – June 200. Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Protection. Sinclair Knight Merz, Perth.

SKM 2003b. Aggregated Emissions Inventory of NPI Substances for the Bunbury Regional Airshed, Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Protection. Sinclair Knight Merz, Perth.

Streets D.G., Carmichael GR, Amann M, Arndt RL 1997. Sulphur dioxide emissions and sulphur deposition from international shipping in Asian waters. Atmospheric Environ 31:1573-1582.

USEPA 2004. Six Common Air Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/chf1.html (last accessed 25/06/07).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 24 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Air Emissions Inventory (Mobile Emissions) Report

Vipac 2007. Draft Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland: Noise Study. Prepared for the Department of Industry and Resources. Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd, Queensland.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA2 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE 25 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

A.3 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth Report

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 115 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 116 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS AT BERTH

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study

SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS AT BERTH

Rev 0

12 December 2007

Sinclair Knight Merz 7th Floor, Durack Centre 263 Adelaide Terrace PO Box H615 Perth WA 6001 Australia

Tel: +61 8 9268 4400 Fax: +61 8 9268 4488 Web: www.skmconsulting.com

The SKM logo is a trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. © Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, 2006 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Dispersion Modelling 2 2.1 Modelling Approach 2 2.2 Ausplume Modelling 2 2.2.1 Grid System 2 2.2.2 Model Terrain 3 2.2.3 Time Series Meteorological Data 3 2.2.4 Model Inputs 3 2.3 Modelling Results 3 3. Conclusions 7

4. References 8

List of figures

3 Figure 1-1 2004-2005 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m ) 4

3 Figure 1-2 2010 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m ) 4

3 Figure 1-3 2015-2020 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m ) 5

List of tables

Table 2-1 Model Inputs 3

Table 2-2 Meteorological Conditions for Maximum 1-hour Concentration 6

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE i Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type 01 18/07/2007 J Harper D Tuxford 18/07/2007 Draft-internal review 01 06/09/2007 D Tuxford D Tuxford 06/09/2007 Draft-Client review

Distribution of copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to 01 Electonic 1 D Tuxford 01 Electonic 1 Client

Printed: 26 May 2008 Last saved: 12 December 2007 09:29 AM

File name: I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Air & Odour Assessment\Shipping Emissions\R01 shipmodel appendA3.doc Author: Claire Delides

Project manager: Jon Harper

Name of organisation: Department of Industry and Resources

Name of project: Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Assessment

Name of document: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

Document version: Rev 0

Project number: WV03265

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE ii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

1. Introduction

The Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) has commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake a study to assess the cumulative environmental effects of future port expansions on the Port Hedland area. As part of this study an emission inventory was completed to gain an understanding of the potential changes in diffuse emissions from the main mobile emission sources in the study region.

The emission inventory demonstrated that the predicted emission of some pollutants has the potential to cause issues in the future. Commercial shipping emissions were shown to increase significantly in the Port Hedland area, with the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulphur (NOx and SO2 respectively) being of greatest concern.

This report is a preliminary assessment of the potential impact of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from commercial shipping emissions at berth at Port Hedland. Due to the high number of vessels that voyage through the Port Hedland area and the high number of predicted vessels in the future, there is the possibility that the emissions from the ships could exceed national ambient air quality criteria established under the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM).

Modelling of the concentration of SO2 from ships at berth was undertaken to find the maximum 1- hour concentration of SO2, the location of this concentration and the meteorological conditions that these maxima occurred at.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

2. Dispersion Modelling

This section describes the model used to undertake a screening level assessment to predict ground level concentrations from the derived emission rates and meteorological data.

2.1 Modelling Approach Air quality impacts from the commercial shipping have been modelled using the Victorian EPA’s AUSPLUME computer dispersion model (Version 6). It is a steady state model, and assumes that over time, the average concentration distribution of the plume is Gaussian. AUSPLUME is one of the primary models for assessing impacts from industrial sites in Australia.

2.2 Ausplume Modelling The AUSPLUME (version 6.0) dispersion model was used, along with site representative meteorological data for the year July 2004 to June 2005, to predict the dispersion of the pollutant

SO2. Concentrations at a number of discrete receptors where maximum concentrations have occurred have also been modelled to find the meteorological conditions in which these maximum concentrations were observed. The main model options and assumptions used are listed below:

meteorological data from an annual file of hourly observations from Port Hedland Airport;

rural dispersion options;

contour receptors on a Cartesian grid of 0.25 km spacing;

assumption of no terrain; and

average roughness length of 0.1 m, to simulate the average over sea and land.

The following assumptions were made for the source of SO2 emissions:

2004-2005, 2010, 2015-2020 model runs, assumed that there were 5, 7 and 10 locations of berth respectively, as indicated by the scenarios described in the main report; and

the amount of SO2 emitted at berth was determined by calculating the total emissions of SO2 at berth and dividing by the number of berthing locations.

2.2.1 Grid System AUSPLUME was configured to predict the ground-level concentrations on a 0.25 km rectangular grid. A modelling domain 19 km (easting) by 12 km (northing) was used. A 0.25 km grid was chosen to restrict the duration of model runs.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

2.2.2 Model Terrain Due to the relatively flat terrain in the area modelled the model was run without incorporating terrain effects. In addition, any terrain effects would not be significant compared to the uncertainties in source emission estimates.

2.2.3 Time Series Meteorological Data Time series meteorological data including one hour averaged values of:

wind speed and direction;

ambient air temperature;

Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class; and

atmospheric mixing height. This is required for AUSPLUME modelling. This data was derived from meteorological measurements taken at Port Hedland airport by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) for the 2004/05 financial year.

2.2.4 Model Inputs The stack parameters used in the model are highlighted in Table 2-1. The temperature was approximated by taking the average value of those given in Table 5 of “Exhaust emissions from ships at berth” (Cooper, 2003). The exit velocity was calculated by taking the average value of flow rate, also in Table 5 of Cooper (2003), and dividing by the area of the stack. The units of per hour were also changed to per second. The stack height and diameter was assumed to be 50 m and 1 m respectively.

Table 2-1 Model Inputs

Stack Parameter Value Stack Height 50 m Stack Diameter 1 m Exit Velocity 1.59 ms-1 Temperature 346 °C

2.3 Modelling Results

Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, show the predicted concentration contours of SO2 emitted by ships at berth in Port Hedland. The concentrations are seen to be greatest in the centre of the port area. The predicted maximum concentration is seen to increase in the future scenarios.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE iii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

3 Figure 2-1 2004-2005 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m )

3 Figure 2-2 2010 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m )

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE iv Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

3 Figure 2-3 2015-2020 SO2 1-hour concentration contours from ships at berth (µg/m )

The meteorological conditions under which the predicted maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations have occurred are displayed in Table 2-1. These maximum concentrations have occurred due to a very low wind speed and mixing height. With a low wind speed, the pollutant can not be dispersed far in the horizontal direction and with a low mixing height; the pollutant can not disperse far in the vertical direction, leading to an increased concentration under these conditions.

The maximum concentrations are not close to the NEPM criteria of 571 µg/m3, with the 2015-2020 concentration of 180 µg/m3 being only 32% of the criteria. However these modelled concentrations appear to increase greatly throughout the years.

The stability class A classifies unstable conditions with strong daytime insolation and stability class C classifies slightly unstable conditions with low daytime insolation. Under these conditions, there is usually good mixing that occurs with the pollutant, however, due to the low wind speed and mixing height, the concentration is found to be high under these conditions.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE v Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

Table 2-2 Meteorological Conditions for Maximum 1-hour Concentration

Max Wind Wind Stability Mixing Year Conc. % NEPM Temp (°C) Speed Directio Class Height (m) (µg/m3) (ms-1) n 2004-2005 103 18 25 0.6 310 C 131

2010 166 29 19 0.5 164 A 134 2015-2020 180 32 19 0.5 164 A 134

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE vi Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

3. Conclusions

An emission inventory completed as part of the Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study has highlighted the potential for mobile emission sources to increase significantly in future. Commercial shipping emissions were shown to increase significantly in the Port Hedland area, with the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulphur (NOx and SO2 respectively) being of greatest concern.

Preliminary modelling of sulphur dioxide emissions from commercial shipping (at berth) has been undertaken to predict the maximum 1-hour concentration of SO2, the location of this concentration on the project grid and the meteorological conditions that these maxima occurred under.

The highest concentrations are seen in the centre of the port area in the vicinity of Nelson Point. The maximum concentration is seen to increase in the future scenarios. Predicted levels are well below the 1-hour criteria specified in the National Environment Protection Measure.

Further expansions of the port beyond those described in the scenarios can be expected to further increase the modelled maximum concentrations. Of interest will be the potential impact arising

from the introduction of an additional industrial source of SO2 emissions within the project area.

This preliminary modelling has not taken into account the contribution of emissions from vessels that are temporarily at anchor outside of the port of Port Hedland. Similarly the contribution to emissions from other vessels (fishing, tugs, non-commercial shipping) has not been accounted for in this assessment.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE vii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Ships at Berth

4. References

Cooper, D.A. (2003). Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmospheric Environment 37:3817- 3830.

Environment Australia 1999, Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Aggregated Emissions from Commercial Ships/Boats and Recreational Boats, Environment Australia, November 1999, Canberra.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\AppendA3 - PHCIA Final_20080318 .doc PAGE viii Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Appendix B Preliminary Light Assessment

Light Assessment Plan Floodlighting of port operations is present for reasons of safety and security. With the port operations functioning 24 hours per day, potential exists for light spill beyond the port perimeter. This light spill may have an intrusive impact on nearby landusers and activities. Extension or expansion of the port operations in the direction of the community may increase the potential impact.

An initial scoping exercise was undertaken to verify the need for further or more detailed evaluation of light sources within the study area. Particular attention was given to reviewing the light sources located at the major industry operations in the area including BHPBIO, salt operations, FMG, Consolidated Minerals, PMI, Newcrest (Nifty), Unimin.

This scoping exercise (light assessment) relied on a visual inspection of existing key light sources, and a qualitative assessment of the extent of light emission.

Procedure Drive through built up, industrial and main road areas in the study location as defined in the Inception Report.

Record location and photograph light spill (where possible) beyond the port perimeter (that is visible and/or considered to be potentially intrusive to the community):

Locate source of major light spill Record the GPS location of the major light spill source (not within private premises) Record the direction of the major light spill Record the colour of the light (eg white, yellow, orange) Where appropriate, take photos of the major light spill, and light sources

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 117 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

Summary of Field Results (23 April 2007: 1830 to 2030 hours)

Location Description Overspill (A); Sky Glow (B); Light Into Windows (C); Source Intensity (D) BP Bulk Terminal Flood lighting on premises, projecting onto the road (edge of the car drive) BHPBIO Temporary floodlights: 4 on one stand. Lighting of stockpile (transfer) area by temporary lighting (permanent lights appear to not be operational). Area adjacent to BP Bulk Terminal, where light directed onto road due to positioning of light source. Conveyor, lit with 2 bright white lights, and face the road.

Corner of Moore and Frewer Port (BHPBIO operations) ‘light presence’ high. streets C–0, A–0, B–1 (white lights). Corner of Moore and Acton Light reflection direct onto house windows. Streets Kingsmill Road (backpackers Floodlighting on storage sheds casting glow onto street and reflects onto house sign) windows Anderson Road – BMX Floodlights casting spill onto houses across the road. tracks and Freo Cranes shed Light reflection direct onto house windows – medium to high. Spill beyond intended illuminated area – medium to high Port Area generally White lights (from port) facing the road are irritating to the road users

General note: during this light assessment, most of the street lamps in the residential areas were not operational. The existing ambient lighting in the assessed area is relatively high. All major light sources were located on premises and hence GPS coordinates are not recorded.

New developments should give consideration to the development and implementation of a lighting plan that addresses issues of reducing the occurrences of light reflection direct onto house windows, and energy efficiency, while maintaining necessary safety and security lighting of operations.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 118 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SliM

Appendix C Noise Modelling and Assessment Report

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc PAGE 119 Port Hedland Cumulative Impact Study – A Report to The Task Force on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability

SICM

This page has been intentionally left blank

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PAGE 120 I:\WVES\Projects\WV03265\Deliverables\Final report\March2007 Version Public Release\DOIR July08\R3 PHCIA Final_20080318.doc

Sinclair Knight Merz

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland

Noise Study

Document No. 70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 2 of 66

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study

DOCUMENT NO: 70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Sinclair Knight Merz Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd 7th Floor, Durack Centre 6/524 Milton Road (PO Box 436) 263 Adelaide Terrace Toowong, QLD. 4066 PERTH 6000 WA AUSTRALIA Australia Contact: Deanna Tuxford 08 9268 4402 +61 7 3870 0400 Fax: 08 9268 9625 Fax : +61 7 3870 0106

PREPARED BY:

8 April 2008 Martin Wilson Date: Senior Engineer

REVIEWED BY:

8 April 2008 James Conomos Date: Reviewing Engineer RELEASED BY:

8 April 2008 Christina Dally Watkins Date: QA Representative REVISION HISTORY Revision No. Date Issued Reason/Comments 4 8 April 2008 Minor changes 3 17 December 2007 DIOR comments reviewed 2 19 September 2007 DIOR comments reviewed 1 7 June 2007 Revised Prelim Draft Issue 0 1 June 2007 Preliminary Draft Issue DISTRIBUTION Copy No.__2__ Location

1 Vipac – Project/Client File 2 Sinclair Knight Merz - PDF

NOTE: This is a controlled document within the document control system. If revised, it must be marked SUPERSEDED and returned to the Vipac QA Representative.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 3 of 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd (VIPAC) was commissioned by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to provide a noise study as part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Area of Port Hedland (CIAS). VIPAC has considered significant noise sources in the Port Hedland region, including road, rail, air traffic, and industrial sources. This desk top study is based on existing noise models and other currently available data, in conjunction with estimates of predicted future developments. Field measurements and field verifications were not included as part of the study scope. For traffic noise and industrial noise three time frame scenarios have been modelled: • Estimated base case (2004-2005) scenario • Predicted (2010) scenario • Predicted (2015 – 2020) scenario For industrial noise modelling both individual items of machinery and entire plants were modelled as a ‘worst case’ operational scenario from noise emission point of view. This produced the ‘worst case’ noise scenario for each time frame considered, and allows comparison of timeframes without the need to consider variations in individual plant operational scenarios. Based on VIPAC’s analysis of modeled noise levels in the Port Hedland region, it is concluded that: 1. The dominant noise sources in Port Hedland township are industrial. Most areas of the Port Hedland township exceed the assessment criteria. Areas closer to the industrial areas of Port Hedland are 10 – 18dB(A) over the criteria. Industrial noise levels are predicted to increase by up to 2 dB by 2015-2020. 2. The dominant noise source in Wedgefield is traffic on the Great Northern Highway. The predicted increase in noise levels from 2004-2005 to 2010 is up to 4 dB, and up to 6dB(A) in 2015-2020. 3. A marginal increase in aircraft noise impact may occur at the airport and under the landing / take-off route depending on the aircraft that are used in the future. VIPAC recommends the following tasks be undertaken to make the noise model more accurate, and therefore allow more accurate and flexible noise predictions. 1. Noise measurements should be taken at close proximity to individual sources in each industrial plant to accurately define each noise source (for existing plant). 2. Noise measurements should be taken at some distance from each industrial plant to allow validation of each industrial plant in the noise model (for existing plant). 3. Additional details should be provided on each industrial plant to allows a more accurate definition of noise sources, i.e. plant layout drawings (future plant) an operational scenarios (both existing and future plant). 4. Traffic noise calibration measurements should be performed.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 4 of 66

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 5 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 6 2. NOISE CRITERIA IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA ...... 7 2.1 INDUSTRIAL NOISE CRITERIA ...... 7 2.2 TRAFFIC NOISE CRITERIA...... 9 2.2.1 Selected traffic noise descriptor ...... 10 2.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE CRITERIA...... 11 3. NOISE MODELLING ...... 11 3.1 NOISE MODEL ...... 11 3.2 DATA AND MODEL INPUT...... 11 3.3 MODEL VALIDATION AND CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS ...... 12 3.3.1 Model Validation...... 12 3.3.2 Model Confidence ...... 12 3.4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ...... 13 3.4.1 Noise Contour Maps...... 13 3.4.2 Noise Increase Maps...... 14 3.5 TRAFFIC NOISE MODELLING METHODOLOGY...... 14 3.6 INDUSTRIAL NOISE MODELLING METHODOLOGY ...... 15 3.6.1 Industrial Noise Source Data...... 16 3.6.2 Environmental Affects on Noise Propagation...... 16 4. DISCUSSION OF NOISE MODELLING RESULTS ...... 17 4.1 PORT HEDLAND...... 17 4.2 WEDGEFIELD ...... 18 4.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE (INCLUDING HELIPORT) ...... 19 5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 20 6. FURTHER WORK ...... 21 6.1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS...... 21 6.2 ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON PLANT LAYOUTS AND OPERATIONS ...... 21 6.3 PORT HEDLAND NOISE POLICY ...... 22 7. ACRONYYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 23 8. COMMON ACOUSTIC TERMS...... 24 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS...... 26 APPENDIX B - NOISE CONTOUR MAPS FOR PORT HEDLAND ...... 31 APPENDIX C - NOISE CONTOUR MAPS FOR WEDGEFIELD...... 48 APPENDIX D - INDUSTRIAL NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS ...... 59 APPENDIX E - INDICATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT...... 63

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 5 of 66

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd (VIPAC) was commissioned by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to provide a noise study as part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Area of Port Hedland (CIAS). The CIAS was designed to investigate the likely changes in key impacts arising from changes and growth to port operations, and the subsequent potential impact on the local community of Port Hedland and Wedgefield. Of particular interest is the likely cumulative effect of a series of developments over time that individually may not create a significant impact, but collectively may contribute to an increase in the overall or cumulative impact on the community. Port Hedland is the major export port of bulk commodities from north Western Australia. Almost all commercial and industrial interests within Port Hedland are directly or indirectly related to servicing the ore handling facilities. Significant expansion of port facilities is planned in the region to cater for the increased export demand for bulk commodities. As a working port, noise associated with heavy machinery and equipment such as stockpiling equipment, ship-loaders, conveyors, ships, trains, road trains, front end loaders and bulldozers is already present and may be intrusive to the residential and commercial areas of Port Hedland. Extension, expansion or changes to the port operations may alter the noise sources and the extent of the potential impact.Figure 1.1 shows an overview of the Port Hedland region, including the Town of Port Hedland, Wedgefield and South Hedland, and the major traffic routes from the Great Northern Hwy to Nelson Point and Finucane Island.

Figure 1.1: Port Hedland Region

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 6 of 66

The following paragraph is extracted from CIAS Inception Report (SKM 2007), dated 15 February 2007: Port Hedland is at a critical stage of development. The current resources boom in the State has stimulated significant regional growth and the trend is expected to continue, in particular with industrial activities which are likely to be accompanied by an increase of exports through the port of Port Hedland. While industrial activities at the port are vital to the prosperity of the town, they generate concerns about potential environmental impacts, such as dust, odour, risk, light and noise.

1.2 Scope of Work This study assesses the noise environment in the Port Hedland Region, and in particular examines the potential for increases in noise with future development. This assessment considers three different types of noise, as follows: • Traffic noise • Industrial noise (including rail noise) • Aircraft noise (aircraft and helicopter) Traffic noise sources included in the assessment are light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles and road trains. Detailed source data is contained in Appendix A. Aircraft noise (aircraft and helicopter) resulting from activity at the Port Hedland Airport and the Port Authority Helipad has been considered in this assessment. Estimates of air traffic movements are consistent with the scoping exercise undertaken by SKM for the CIAS . The SKM scoping exercise was used as the reference to produce a list of industrial noise sources. Industrial noise sources from operations and activities on Port Authority land, as well as those outside Port Authority land, are considered in this assessment. These are listed in Appendix D along with a detailed list of those industrial noise sources included in the actual modelling. Sources considered to have a minor noise contribution are not included in the modelling scenarios. This report presents VIPAC’s assessment of noise in the Port Hedland Region for the scenario years 2004-2005, 2010, and 2015-2020. The scope of work is to assess the noise environment in the Port Hedland Region, and in particular examine the potential for increases in noise with future development. We have considered three different types of noise, as follows: • Traffic noise • Industrial noise (including rail noise) • Aircraft noise (aircraft and helicopter) For industrial noise, the following industries are considered in the CIA Noise Study:

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 7 of 66

2. NOISE CRITERIA IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA This section outlines the current noise criteria in Western Australia which is used as a guide in assessing the cumulative noise impact in Port Hedland. Modelled noise levels will be compared to the relevant criteria, as well as the relative change in modelled levels in the future scenarios being compared to the base case scenario. For the purpose of this assessment, the modelled noise results are assessed for noise sensitive premises (houses) where people are living. The most sensitive conditions are those considered to cause sleep disturbance, occuring during the time period 2200 hours to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 2200 hours to 0900 hours Sunday and public holidays. Model results are also compared to the base-case scenario where the relative change is of most interest.

2.1 Industrial Noise Criteria The applicable industrial noise criteria in Western Australia are contained in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, as indicated in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: EPA Noise Criteria

Type of Premises Time of day Assigned level (dB)

Receiving Noise LA10 LA1 LAmax 0700 to 1900 hours 45 + IF 55 +IF 65 + IF Noise sensitive premises at Monday to Saturday locations within 15 metres of a building directly associated 0900 to 1900 hours Sunday 40 + IF 50 + IF 65 + IF with a noise sensitive use and public holidays 1900 to 2200 hours all days 40 + IF 50 + IF 55 + IF

2200 hours on any day to 35 + IF 45 + IF 55 + IF 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and public holidays Noise sensitive premises at 60 75 80 locations further than 15 metres from a building Commercial premises 60 75 80 Industrial and utility premises 65 80 90

‘IF’ represents an influencing factor which increases along with the number of busy roads, and commercial and industrial areas that surround the noise sensitive premises.

The LA10 noise descriptor is the strictest of the design criteria for industrial noise. This is due to the fact that machinery and many other industrial noise sources located in the Port Hedland area are effectively constant noise sources. All predicted noise levels for industrial noise referenced in this report and used in the model refer to the LA10 noise descriptor.

The LA10 noise descriptor is defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the time. The LA1 noise descriptor is defined as the noise level that is exceeded for 1% of the time. The LAmax noise descriptor is defined as the maximum noise level (measured on the ‘slow’ meter response).

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 8 of 66

Noise measurements of the machinery used in the noise model show that the LA1 and LAmax values are generally higher than the LA10 values, but not by more than 10dB(A) and 20dB(A), which are the increases above the LA10 noise criteria for the LA1 and LAmax noise criteria (See Table 3.1). Table 3.1 shows that the focus of the criteria is on achieving a specific noise target. However the regulations also state that where assigned noise levels are already exceeded, an additional noise source must not ‘significantly contribute to’ the exceedence. Section 7 of the regulations further stipulate that ‘a noise emission is taken to significantly contribute to a level of noise if the noise emission exceeds a value which is 5 dB below the assigned level at the point of reception. Since almost all industrial operations in Port Hedland are 24hours a day operations, the noise levels indicated are for all times of the day. While noise contour maps show the predicted noise over a large area, the criteria are only applicable to areas where noise sensitive premises exist. Noise sensitive receivers are considered as buildings with the following uses: • Houses, townhouses, apartments, etc (residential dwellings) • Hotels, Motels, and other short-term accommodation • Hospitals, schools, places of worship, and other noise sensitive utilities. The most sensitive time is the night time period of ‘2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and public holidays’. This is reflected in the stricter noise criteria in this period.

Note that traffic noise predictions are shown as the LAeq(24hr) noise descriptor for reasons explained in the Traffic noise section.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 9 of 66

2.2 Traffic Noise Criteria Two traffic noise criteria are used in Western Australia, as follows:

1) The WA Main Roads, which is a 63dB(A) LA10(24hr) criteria, and; 2) The criteria contained in the EPA Statements for EIA No. 14 (Version 3) Road and Rail Transportation Noise, (Draft 10/5/00). The WA Main Roads criteria is designed for application to most traffic noise situations. The EPA document is concerned with the noise from road and rail transportation for the specific purpose of influencing land use planning. While land use planning is not a major focus in the noise component of the CIA noise study, the criteria presented in this document provide a useful reference. The document states The criteria for assessment of the impact of traffic noise is contained in the EPA Statements for EIA No. 14 (Version 3) Road and Rail Transportation Noise, (Draft 10/5/00), which states:

5.3 Criteria for proposed increase in road or rail traffic 5.3.1 Environmental objective This section applies where an increase in traffic flow is proposed such that the total flow along the corridor exceeds that on which planning decisions were made under Section 5.1 above, and where a significant traffic flow, either temporary or permanent, would result from a specific industrial or transportation proposal. This section would not apply to incremental increases which were associated with the normal traffic growth along the corridor and were within the bounds of planning decisions under Section 5.1 above. The objectives are - (i) that the noise levels inside noise-sensitive premises associated with the proposed traffic should meet acceptable levels, or that the degree of increase in noise levels should be of low significance; and (ii) that the noise emissions of the vehicles associated with a specific proposal should comply with ‘best practice’.

EPA Statements for EIA No. 14 refers to ‘Noise Amenity Ratings’ that classify the pre- existing noise environment at noise sensitive receivers. Acceptable increases in noise at noise sensitive receivers due to increase of traffic flow caused by a specific industrial or transportation proposal are also presented in Statement 14. These acceptable increases are based on the Noise Amenity Rating for that receiver. The Noise Amenity Rating for each receiver is determined by the noise level prior to the introduction of the proposed development. Noise Amenity Ratings and acceptable increases are presented in Table 3.2.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 10 of 66

Table 3.2 Noise Amenity Ratings and Acceptable Increases in LAeq,T Noise Level

Acceptable Increase in L (Day), L (Night), Rating Aeq,0700-2200 Aeq,2200-0700 L noise level, dB(A) dB(A) Aeq,T dB(A) 4, or to top of N0, N0 < 50 < 40 whichever is greater N1 51 – 55 41 – 45 3 N2 56 – 60 46 – 50 1.5 N3 61 – 65 51 – 55 0.5 N4 66 – 70 56 – 60 0 N5 > 70 > 70 0 Notes (taken from the EPA Statements for EIA No. 14): 1. The NAR for a location is the higher of the day and night ratings. 2. Noise levels refer to external locations at 1 m from a building façade 3. “Day” means 7am – 10pm and “Night” means 10pm – 7am.

Generally, road traffic noise criteria is set at 63dB(A) LA10 by most road authorities. In the case of individual truck pass-bys, a short term high noise level will be produced. This effect is best described with the LAmax noise descriptor. If the LAmax produced by truck pass-bys is high enough then the potential for sleep disturbance exists. As with the industrial noise criteria, the focus of traffic noise impacts is on the increase in noise levels due to additional development. As such the focus of the traffic noise modelling in this study is on potential increases in noise level.

2.2.1 Selected traffic noise descriptor

Traffic noise is presented in this study as the LA10(24hr) noise descriptor. The main reason for this is that the available traffic volume data is most conducive to accurate noise prediction with this noise descriptor. The supplied traffic data only indicates the total traffic volumes in a day (AADT), as well as peak hour intersection movements for AM and PM periods. In any case for a cumulative impact assessment, the main focus is on the increase in noise levels in areas of the Port Hedland region. The LA10(24hr) noise descriptor indicates the noise levels exceed for 10% of the time in a 24 hour period.

The preferable noise descriptors would be the LAeq,0700-2200 (Day), and LAeq,2200-0700 (Night) noise descriptors, as these are used in the criteria from the EPA Statements for EIA No. 14 (Version 3) Road and Rail Transportation Noise, (Draft 10/5/00). To obtain these noise descriptors, significant assumptions about traffic distribution in the daytime and nighttime would be required. As such daytime and nighttime values calculated may not accurately reflect actual values. The LAeq,0700-2200 (Day), and LAeq,2200-0700 (Night) noise descriptors could be used if traffic noise logging data was available. Logging data would show the relative differences in values of noise descriptors and allow a calibration of any noise descriptor with the LA10(18hr) value calculated from SoundPLAN using CoRTN. For sleep disturbance there is no criteria applicable. However the industrial noise criteria of LAmax 55 + IF would serve as a good guide to the impact of events from vehicle passbys. In any case noise measurements would need to be taken to determine the Lmax level of vehicles.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 11 of 66

2.3 Aircraft Noise Criteria The applicable criteria for aircraft noise is contained in AS 2021-2000.

The limiting noise criteria for aircraft in this standard is the LAmax. This noise descriptor considers the maximum noise event in any period. It does not, therefore, consider the number or duration of noise events in a period. As a result, the LAmax for aircraft pass by, or take off and landing, will not increase due to increased air traffic. An increase in this parameter will only occur if the type of aircraft is changed to a noisier model. A change to the type of aircraft is not accounted for in this assessment.

3. NOISE MODELLING

3.1 Noise Model Traffic noise and industrial noise has been modelled separately using SoundPLAN noise modelling software (version 6.3). SoundPLAN software is used world wide and is one of the leading software products available for road, rail, and industry noise prediction. The CoRTN (Calculation of Road Traffic Noise ) method was used to predict traffic noise. The CoRTN algorithm was developed in the UK for modelling traffic noise and is generally the required algorithm for road traffic noise predictions in Australia. Industrial noise was modelled using the CONCAWE noise prediction method. CONCAWE was developed as an algorithm to predict noise from petrochemical plants. It allows consideration of the effect of meteorological conditions on noise propagation. CONCAWE has been used successfully to model other industrial plants at Port Hedland. The noise modelling results for traffic noise and industrial noise are presented in the form of colour noise contour maps (Appendix B and Appendix C) which were produced using SoundPLAN.

3.2 Data and Model Input A three dimensional geo-database model of the Port Hedland region was created in SoundPLAN to model traffic and industrial noise. A summary of the sources of geo-database model input is presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Model Input Data

Item Description Cadastre Landgate data, provided by SKM Terrain WV03265_De_Grey_Mosaic.dwg, provided by SKM Existing Traffic Count Copy of Port Hedland Traffic Count Summary – Jan 07.xls, and traffic speeds provided by SKM Traffic Predictions TrafficVols_PointUtah_Ver1.xls, provided by SKM Industrial Noise Sourced from VIPAC’s database Source Spectra and Sound Powers Industrial Noise From SKM for plants other than BHPBIO plant Source positions List of Noise Sources Scenario tables_dtu_updated.doc (510 KB), provided by SKM

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 12 of 66

The existing noise models of the BHPIO Finucane Island operations and the BHPIO Nelson Point operations were included in the CIAS noise model. A generic infrastructure footprint for the three modelled scenarios is provided in Appendix E. It must be noted that much of the data for individual plant operations has been provided in confidence for use in the study so that a cumulative picture can be presented. As such detailed source and emissions data is not reproduced in this assessment report, however generic details of sources included in the model are presented in Appendix D.

3.3 Model Validation and Confidence in Results

3.3.1 Model Validation SoundPLAN is considered to be an appropriate noise modelling package for the purpose of this assessment. It must be noted that this is a desk-top study and as such no field measurement or validation of the model was undertaken. Therefore there is a need to be mindful when considering the absolute values generated from noise modelling. The comparison of the relative change in the predicted noise levels is a more robust interpretation of the results. The approach taken by VIPAC is one that seeks to maximise the confidence in the results in the absence of field measurement validation, as follows:. • VIPAC has conducted many traffic noise modelling studies involving roads with a high percentage of heavy vehicles, particularly articulated vehicles. In these studies, when the traffic noise source is broken down into the components of car noise , heavy vehicle tyre noise, and heavy vehicle engine/exhaust noise, predicted noise level are usually within 2dB(A) of the measured noise levels. The traffic noise modelling has adopted this approach • The base case scenario model for industrial noise was based on a series of existing (but separate) noise models that have been (historically) validated and calibrated through field measurements. As such, it is expected that the predicted noise levels would be within 3dB(A) of measured noise levels. As such, while the traffic an industrial noise models are not validated, the results are likely to be as accurate as validated models.

3.3.2 Model Confidence As with any cumulative impact assessment of this nature, the accuracy of the model is dependent on the assumptions made in the modelling process, particularly with regards to the following: 1) Individual noise source definition - sound power and spectrum. 2) Plant layouts - position of machinery (X, Y, Z relative positioning, shielding from buildings etc) 3) Operational scenarios – what machinery is running for worst case, typical case etc. Confidence in the Noise Increase Maps is better than the noise contour maps, as they show a relative noise level between scenarios. Any noise prediction errors due to a fundamental inaccurate assumption, or a large number of inaccuracies, would be common to both noise contour maps, and would be eliminated in the subtraction process of subtracting one noise contour maps from another. The potential error in the noise increase maps is confined to the assumptions related to the difference in noise sources between the two scenarios.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 13 of 66

For industrial plant operations the increase in noise has typically been based on the predicted increase in material throughput. For example, if a plant is to expand from 50Mta to 100Mta throughput we would assume that the noise level from that plant would double, ie go up by 3dB(A). It should be noted that noise sources in the proposed plants (not in operation at present) have been assigned sound powers based on typical sound powers of conveyors, drives etc, from VIPAC’s database. The positioning of these sources was selected as per the coordinates supplied by SKM, and therefore is consistent with the sources used in the cumulative assessment. Robustness of the results could be improved through field measurements. In noise modelling, validation measurements are used to quantitatively assess the accuracy of a model. Validation noise measurements are taken at some distance from an industrial plant where the plant is clearly the dominant source of noise. For traffic noise, noise logging at each of the road section modelled would be required. In each case, the noise measurements would be compared to the predicted noise levels from a noise model. Measurements to validate the noise models should be considered as part of future work.

3.4 Presentation of Results Results are presented as noise contour maps and noise increase maps. All maps are in Appendix B and C.

3.4.1 Noise Contour Maps Noise prediction results are shown as noise contour maps. Noise contour maps are produced by predicting noise at a grid of points over the areas of interest. The predicted noise levels at the grid points are analysed by the modelling software to form noise contour lines, which are assigned bands and colours for a graphics display. Noise contour maps are a powerful tool in displaying results. Figure 4.1 shows an example of a noise contour map.

Scale – showing noise level over Port Hedland Port Hedland and Nelson Point as indicated by colour on Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Industrial Noise scale

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 = 45 dB(A) 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 Contours showing 00125250 500 750 1000 m decreasing noise away from plant area Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure 3.1 Example noise contour map

Note that the noise contours are not shown in areas within the industrial areas to avoid pinpointing the specific sources of noise.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 14 of 66

3.4.2 Noise Increase Maps Noise Increase Maps are shown for both traffic noise and industrial noise. They are created by subtracting the noise contour map for one scenario from the noise contour map of another Noise increase maps are effectively noise difference maps. For this project VIPAC has subtracted the noise contour map of the 2004/2005 base case from the noise contour map of the later scenarios. Thus the noise increase maps show the increase in noise from the base case scenario to the later ones. The noise increase indicated is a linear increase, i.e. if the predicted noise level in 2004/2005 for a point is 50dB(A) and the noise increase map showed an increase of 3dB(A) between 2004/2005 and 2010, then the predicted noise level in 2010 would be 53 dB(A).

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Scale – showing how Increase Map - Increased Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2 - Year 2015 much the noise will increase from 2004/2005

Noise increase to 2015-2020 – as LA10,24hr dB(A) indicated by colours on

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure 3.2 Example noise difference map

3.5 Traffic Noise Modelling Methodology Modelled Scenarios Three traffic noise scenarios have been modelled: Estimated existing (2004-2005) scenario Predicted (2010) scenario Predicted (2015 – 2020) scenario Road Source Parameters Due to the high volumes of heavy vehicles and road trains modelled in this study, separate road source strings were used in SoundPLAN to describe light vehicles, heavy vehicles and road trains. Five source lines were used to model the traffic noise from each road segment, as follows over page:

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 15 of 66

Light vehicles Heavy vehicles – engine noise Heavy vehicles – exhaust noise Road Trains – engine noise Road Trains – exhaust noise

The roads modelled in the study are shown in Figure 3.3. Full details are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 3.3 Roads Modelled for traffic noise impacts All traffic data and assumptions used to predict traffic noise are shown in Appendix A.

3.6 Industrial Noise Modelling Methodology For operational considerations, a worst case noise scenario was considered. For example, for mobile plant the engine was assumed to be running at high revs (as measured in a high idle situation), which is the nosiest the engine is likely to be for any operational situation.

All sound power, spectra values, and results are LA10 values. Previous noise measurements of machine noise which were used in this model recorded the LAeq, LA10, LAmax, and LA90 noise descriptors, measured over a period of 15s to 1 minute. Since the LA10 is the noise descriptor with the strictest criteria, the LA10 for each machine was used to define the sound power in the model. As such all predicted noise levels are LA10 values (LA10 in, LA10 out). Tonality, impulsive noise, and modulation characteristics are considered to be absent from the received noise. As much of the data for individual operations has been provided in confidence for use in the study, detailed source and emissions data is not reproduced in this assessment report, however generic details of sources included in the model is presented in Appendix D.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 16 of 66

Source Representation Key emission sources relevant to each of the three scenarios were identified through the SKM screening exercise. Conveyors are represented as line sources. Drives and most other sources are represented as point sources. Where sufficient data was available, plant contained in buildings (eg including crusher buildings / car dumpers) were modelled as noise emitting buildings, with sound powers attributed to the facades of the buildings.

Position of sources Detailed source locations are not reproduced or presented in this assessment report, as this information has been provided in confidence to present a cumulative picture. For industrial noise sources other than BHPB-IO plants in the Base Case Scenario, sources were positioned according to coordinate information supplied by SKM. A generic infrastructure footprint for each of the three scenarios is provided in Appendix E. Sound Powers and Spectra Sound power and spectra for machinery were obtained from VIPAC’s noise library, including the Port Hedland, Finucane Island and Newman models. Measurement data was used from measurement surveys conducted at Port Hedland, Finucane Island and Newman. For the future scenarios, the type/ brand of machinery is not available. The underlying assumption is that for the same type of emission source, the same sound power and spectra are applicable.

3.6.1 Industrial Noise Source Data The industrial noise source data is presented in Appendix D. Only those emission sources considered to be a significant emitter have been included in the model.

3.6.2 Environmental Affects on Noise Propagation Meteorology has a significant influence on the propagation of noise from industrial noise sources. The EPA document Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors – Environmental Noise No. 8 Draft June 1998 recommends the parameters shown in Table 4.3 as the worst case weather scenarios for industrial noise modelling. Table 3.3 EPA's Default 'Worst Case' Weather Conditions

Parameter Day (0700 – 1900) Night (1900 – 0700 Wind Speed 4 m/s 3 m/s Temperature inversion lapse rate Nil 2 °C /100m Temperature 20 °C 15 °C Relative Humidity 50 % 50 % SoundPLAN noise modelling software uses the Pasquill Stability Class (PSC) system to account for the influence of temperature inversions. Depending on the PSC and wind speed, the atmospheric conditions fall in to one of 6 Meterological Categories, with Category 6 producing the greatest increase in noise levels due to atmospheric conditions. Each meterological category comprises a set of algorithms for each octave band.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 17 of 66

Typically, the EPA would require modelling of worst case meteorological conditions to determine impact. However, for the purposes of this study a neutral weather temperature condition has been considered using CONCAWE. The SoundPLAN input parameters for neutral weather condition are presented in Table 4.4. A worst case scenario was not considered on the following basis: The worst case weather scenario modelled in SoundPLAN assumes adverse wind conditions from all sources to all receivers. As there are noise sources spread over a large area, and the sources are located in multiple directions from noise sensitive receivers, the worst case scenario is impossible in practice and would give an unreasonable overprediction of noise levels. As the purpose of the cumulative impact assessment is primarily the assessment of change of impact (i.e. relative difference between the cases modelled) rather than the prediction of noise levels at sensitive receivers, a worst case scenario does not inform this assessment. Table 3.4: Meteorological Conditions for Use In SoundPLAN model

Parameter Neutral Weather Wind speed 0 m/s Temperature inversion lapse rate Nil Pasquill Stability Class D Temperature 20 °C Relative humidity 50 %

4. DISCUSSION OF NOISE MODELLING RESULTS Noise contour maps and noise increase maps are presented as results in Appendix B for Port Hedland and Appendix C for Wedgefield.

4.1 Port Hedland Noise contour maps for industrial and traffic noise scenarios Port Hedland are presented in Appendix B. Traffic Noise

As such, the traffic noise contour maps indicate that the 63dB(A) LA10(18hr) criterion is likely to be satisfied for all scenarios. Traffic noise levels can be seen to be above 63dB(A) only immediately adjacent to the road. Individual truck pass-bys will produce a short-term high noise level. This effect is best defined with the LAmax noise descriptor. If the LAmax produced by truck pass-bys is high enough then the potential for sleep disturbance exists. This potential for sleep disturbance should be further assessed and will require measurement of the maximum noise level of a truck pass-by and the typical construction of nearby noise sensitive buildings. Traffic noise is predicted to increase by up to 1 dB in residential built-up areas by 2010 and by up to 3 dB by 2015 – 2020 (as a worst case scenario).

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 18 of 66

The increased traffic noise at Port Hedland is primarily due to noise from increased truck movements on Finucane Road – See Figure B5. Industrial Noise Industrial activity is the main source of noise in Port Hedland. In general the critical noise criteria in Port Hedland occurs at night because the nearby industrial plants run 24hrs a day. As such, when considering the influencing factor, the worst case noise criteria is likely to be between 35dB(A) and 40dB(A) LA10. Noise contour maps for all three scenarios indicate that most of the Port Hedland township exceeds this criteria. Areas close to the port operations and activities at Nelson Point are close to 20dB(A) over the criteria – See Figures B9 to B11. With the local industry dominating the local noise environment we have reasonable confidence in the predicted noise levels as we have validated the modelling for the major industries in previous studies. We would expect the results would not deviate by more than 5dB(A) and more likely they are +/- 3dB(A). Noise due to industrial activity is predicted to increase by up to 1 dB by 2010 and by up to 2 dB by 2015 – 2020 in residential built-up areas – See Figures B12 and B13. The small and localised increase in noise near the port is due to an additional tug boat in the future scenarios. Noise contour maps show industrial areas progressively appearing in the Port Hedland region in the future scenarios. However it is the local industry that continues to dominate the local noise environment. As such the noise levels in Port Hedland are best controlled by focusing on controlling noise levels produced by the local industries in Port Hedland.

4.2 Wedgefield Noise contour maps for industrial and traffic noise scenarios in Wedgefield are presented in Appendix C. Wedgefield is zoned as an industrial area. There are some residences in Wedgefield which primarily house caretakers of the industrial interests in Wedgefield. Traffic Noise

In lieu of not being able to assess traffic noise to the EPA’s LAeq,0700-2200 (Day), and LAeq,2200- 0700 (Night) noise descriptors (See Section 2.2.1), an assessment is made to the LA10(18hr) WA Main Roads criteria. Generally road traffic noise criteria is set at 63dB(A) LA10(18hr) by most Australian State road authorities. The contour maps show predicted noise levels as LA10,(24hr) values. LA10,(24hr) values are generally 1dB(A) below LA10(18hr) values for traffic noise. Traffic on the Great Northern Highway is predicted to be the dominant noise source in Wedgefield for all scenarios. Noise levels are predicted to increase by up to 4 dB in industrial built-up areas by 2010 and by up to 6 dB by 2015 – 2020.

As with Port Hedland, if the LAmax produced by truck pass-bys is high enough then the potential for sleep disturbance exists. This potential for sleep disturbance should be assessed and will require measurement of the maximum noise level of a truck pass-by. The typical construction method of nearby noise sensitive buildings should also be considered. Industrial Noise Existing noise levels in Wedgefield from the plants considered are low, as are future predicted industrial noise levels. Noise levels show in Appendix C show existing and future noise levels are below 36dB(A)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 19 of 66

In general the critical noise criteria in Wedgefield occurs at night because the industrial plants affecting Wedgefield run 24hrs a day. As such, when considering the influencing factor, the worst case noise criteria is likely to be between 40dB(A) and 45dB(A) LA10. Noise contour maps for all three scenarios indicate that noise in Wedgefield satisfies this criteria.

4.3 Aircraft Noise (including Heliport) As aircraft are not a constant or stationary noise source aircraft noise is not included in the industrial noise modelling. A qualitative discussion of the impact of aircraft noise is presented in this section. Aircraft noise is mainly generated by the Port Hedland International Airport at Redbank, and the Heliport at Port Hedland (at the PHPA Wharf).

The limiting noise criteria for aircraft is typically the LAmax. This noise descriptor considers the maximum noise event in any period. It does not, therefore, consider the number or duration of noise events in a period. As a result, the LAmax for aircraft pass by, or take off and landing, will not increase due to increased air traffic. An increase in this parameter will only occur if the type of aircraft is changed to a noisier model. An increase in aircraft size from Boeing 717 to Boeing 737 is proposed as part of the 2015 – 2020 scenario to accommodate increased passenger numbers. No change in helicopter type is expected.

Therefore, LAmax noise levels due to the Port Hedland International Airport may increase if the proposed larger aircraft are noisier than the existing models.

If the LAmax produced by aircraft flyovers is high enough then the potential for sleep disturbance exists. This potential for sleep disturbance should be assessed and will require measurement of the maximum noise level of an aircraft, flight path and the typical construction of nearby noise sensitive buildings.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 20 of 66

5. CONCLUSIONS Based on VIPAC’s analysis of noise levels in the Port Hedland region, it is concluded that: 1. The dominant noise sources in Port Hedland township are industrial. Most areas of the Port Hedland township exceeds the noise criteria selected for this assessment. Areas closer to the of Port Hedland port operations are 10 – 18dB(A) over the criteria. Industrial noise levels are predicted to increase by up to 2 dB by 2015 – 2020. 2. The dominant noise source in Wedgefield is from traffic on the Great Northern Highway. Results indicate that traffic noise criteria will be satisfied for all scenarios. The predicted increase in noise levels from base case to 2010 is up to 4 dB, and up to 6dB(A) in 2015-2020. 3. This potential for sleep disturbance from truck pass-bys should be assessed and will require measurement of the maximum noise level of a truck pass-by and the typical construction of nearby noise sensitive buildings. 4. A marginal increase in aircraft noise impact may occur at the airport and under the landing / take-off route depending on the aircraft that are used in the future.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 21 of 66

6. FURTHER WORK The following recommendations would serve the purpose of allowing a more accurate appraisal of the existing and future noise impacts in the Port Hedland region.

6.1 Noise measurements To produce more accurate noise models which can produce more accurate noise predictions, the following types of noise measurements should be conducted: 1) Sources definition noise measurements. For industrial plants noise measurements taken at close proximity to individual sources in each industrial plant can be used to accurately define each noise source, in terms of Sound Power and Sound Power spectrum. The present model uses Sound Power and Sound Power spectra from noise sources measured at other industrial plant, which are a reasonable assumption. 2) Validation noise measurements. For industrial plants noise measurements taken at some distance from each plant, but so that the plant is clearly the dominant source of noise, will allow validation for the group of plant sources. This is an important part of ensuring the model predicts noise accurately. The areas where we believe noise measurement would benefit noise prediction the most are listed below. • Power Station • Train pass-bys • Truck pass-bys • Car dumper noise • Aircraft noise • Fortescue Metals Group 3) Traffic noise measurements. For the major roads carrying traffic in the Port Hedland region, traffic noise logging should be conducted over at least a year. The long time frame would allow the correlation of traffic noise with events that may affect traffic noise, such as holiday periods, ships in port, weather, etc. With logging data the relative difference in values of various noise descriptors could be calculated. This would allow for an effective comparison of traffic noise predictions with the relevant traffic noise criteria

6.2 Additional detail on plant layouts and operations More details on the industrial plants being modelled would ensure more accurate modelling. The information required can be organised into two catagories: 1) Detailed plant layouts, ie lists and positions of machinery 2) The likely operational scenarios for a worst case and/or typical operations scenarios ie what machinery is running at any given time. Layouts and operational details for the following plants would greatly assist in determining the impact of these plant sources: • Power Station • Fortescue Metals Group

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 22 of 66

6.3 Port Hedland Noise Policy Port Hedland has many unique challenges at present and in the future. The current noise policies may not have been drafted with these challenges in mind, and as such the policies may not achieve their objectives in Port Hedland. We recommend that the current applicable noise polices be examined for their suitability in achieving all the necessary environmental and land use planning objectives in Port Hedland. In doing this, additional policy specific to Port Hedland may need to be drafted. This would most likely take the form of a policy that applies in addition to the current applicable noise polices, with perhaps some exceptions to the current applicable noise polices.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 23 of 66

7. ACRONYYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BHPIO BHP Billiton Iron Ore CIA Cumulative impact assessment Cnr corner of CONCAWE Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe CoRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (proprietary noise modelling algorithm) DEC Department of Environment Protection EPA Environmental Protection Agency FMG Fortescue Metals Group SKM Sinclair Knight Merz SoundPLAN SoundPLAN noise modelling software VIPAC Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 24 of 66

8. COMMON ACOUSTIC TERMS

Sound Pressure Level (Lp) – Sound or noise is the sensation produced at the ear by very small fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. The human ear responds to changes in sound pressure over a very wide range (from 20 microPascals to 60 Pascals). A scale that compresses this range to a more manageable size and that is best matched to subjective response is the logarithmic scale, rather than a linear scale.

Sound Pressure Level (Lp) is defined as: ⎛ p 2 ⎞ L = log10 ⎜ ⎟dB P 10 ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎝ pref ⎠ In the above equation, p is the sound pressure fluctuation (above or below atmospheric -5 pressure), and pref is 20 microPascals (2 x 10 Pa), the approximate threshold of hearing. To avoid a scale which is too compressed, a factor of 10 is included, giving rise to the decibel, or dB for short. A-Weighted Decibel (dB(A)) & Loudness – The overall level of a sound is usually expressed as dB(A), instead of dB. The sound is measured using an A-weighted filter, which is incorporated into the sound level meter. The filter is used to approximate the response of the human ear. It reduces the significance of lower frequencies and very high frequencies, thereby increasing the importance of mid-frequencies (500 Hz to 4 kHz), and being a good measure of the “loudness” of a sound. A change of 1 to 2 dB(A) is difficult to detect, whilst a change of 3 to 5 dB(A) corresponds to a small but noticeable change. A 10 dB(A) change corresponds to a doubling or halving in apparent loudness. Refer to the section below on Human Perception of Loudness. C-Weighted Decibel (dB(C)) – In some circumstances, the sound pressure level is expressed as C-Weighted decibels, instead of the more common A-Weighted. The C-Weighting filter is designed to replicate the response of the human ear above 85 dB, and places a greater weighting on low frequency noise.

LAeq is the time averaged A-weighted sound pressure level for the interval, as defined in AS1055.1. It is generally described as the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level that has the same mean square pressure level as a sound that varies over time. It can be considered as the average sound pressure level over the measurement period.

LA1 is the A-weighted sound level exceeded for 1% of a specified period

LA10 is the A-weighted sound level exceeded for 10% of a specified period

LAmax is the maximum A-weighted sound level in decibels, measured on the “slow” meter response. Octave frequency bands allow a representation of the spectrum associated with a particular noise. They are an octave wide, meaning that the highest frequency in the band is just twice the lowest frequency, with all intermediate frequencies included and all other frequencies excluded. Each octave band is described by its centre frequency. Third (1/3) octave frequency bands provide a little more information. Third octave bands are bands of frequency approximately one third of the width of an octave band.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 25 of 66

Human Perception of Loudness. The following table is extracted from Bies, DA and Hansen, CH, Engineering Noise Control, 3rd Ed. It presents the apparent, perceived change in loudness due to changes in sound pressure level. Subjective Effect of Changes in Sound Pressure Level

Change in Change in (sound) power sound level Change in Apparent Loudness (dB) Decrease Increase 3 1/2 2 Just perceptible 5 1/3 3 Clearly noticeable 10 1/10 10 Half or twice as loud 20 1/100 100 Much quieter or louder

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 26 of 66

APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 27 of 66

Traffic Noise

Modelled Scenarios Three traffic noise scenarios have been modelled: Estimated existing (2004-2005) scenario Predicted (2010) scenario Predicted (2015 – 2020) scenario Road Source Parameters Due to the high volumes of heavy vehicles and road trains modelled in this study, separate road source strings were used in SoundPLAN to describe light vehicles, heavy vehicles and road trains. Five source lines were used to model the traffic noise from each road segment, as follows: Light vehicles Heavy vehicles – engine noise Heavy vehicles – exhaust noise Road Trains – engine noise Road Trains – exhaust noise Noise source string heights were modelled as shown in Table A-1. The road strings for heavy vehicles and road trains have been separated into exhaust and engine/tyre noise. This allows for consideration of the higher noise emission height on heavy vehicles. 3 dB(A) was added to road trains to allow for the increased tyre and engine noise produced by these vehicles, as compared ot normal heavy vehicles. This is based on the fact that at high speed noise is predominantly tyre noise, and therefore a vehicle with twice as many axils will produce approximately twice as much noise, ie will be 3dB(A) higher. Table A-1: Road String Parameters Used in Traffic Modelling

% Heavy String Road Train Vehicles Height (m) Correction Light vehicles 0 0.5 Heavy vehicles – engine / tyre 100 1.5 noise Heavy vehicles – exhaust noise 100 3.5 Road Trains – engine / tyre noise 100 1.5 + 3 Road Trains –exhaust noise 100 3.5 + 3 In the absence of any available data on road surface type, it has been assumed that dense graded asphalt (DGA) is used on all roads. CRTN uses a 0 dB road surface correction for this road surface type.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 28 of 66

Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes were obtained from SKM, and is based on a 2006 traffic assessment in Port Hedland. The data considered AM and PM peak hour turning volumes at four intersections, namely: Cnr Pinga and Cajarina Sts, Wedgefield Cnr Great Northern Hwy and Pinga St, Wedgefield Cnr Great Northern Hwy and Wallwork Rd, Wedgefield Cnr Great Northern Hwy and Port Hedland Rd, Redbank Three traffic scenarios are considered in the traffic data provided. These have been used as the basis for traffic scenarios considered in the noise study presented in this report, namely: Estimated existing (2006) scenario Predicted (2009) scenario, with triple road trains Predicted (2009) scenario, with quad road trains In addition, the January 2007 traffic count for Port Hedland was provided by SKM. VIPAC has processed the data provided by SKM to determine annual average daily traffic (AADT) and 18 hour traffic volumes for input into the SoundPLAN traffic model. The following assumptions have been used to process the traffic data: All Vehicles For the purposes of the Cumulative Impact Assessment, it was assumed that the 2004-2005 Base Case scenario was approximated by the 2006 traffic assessment provided. Similarly, it was assumed that the 2010 Forecast Scenario was approximated by the 2009 Triple Road Train case. The 2010 Forecast Scenario has been increased by 50 % to approximate the 2015- 2020 Forecast Scenario. This is an extreme, and unlikely, growth rate; corresponding to 8 % pa for 5 years. This has been modelled in order to demonstrate that a significant traffic volume increase is required to cause modest traffic noise increases. The traffic data used by VIPAC is presented in Appendix A. Light and Heavy Vehicles (Austroads 94 Classes 1 – 2 and 3 – 9) The average peak hour traffic volume is 10 % of the AADT, as advised by SKM. 95 % of the AADT travels between 6 am and 12 am (the 18 hour period for traffic calculation). No data was provided for predicted (2010) traffic volumes on Port Hedland Rd and Wilson St, apart from AM and PM intersection volumes at the cnr of Great Northern Hwy and Port Hedland Rd. The ratio of vehicles on various sections of these roads was taken from the 2007 traffic count and scaled according to the volumes in the peak hour traffic predictions. All vehicles travelling on Cajarina Rd continue along Finucane Rd to Finucane Island. Posted traffic speeds are as per the 2007 traffic count. Road Trains (Austroads 94 Classes 10 – 12) Road train traffic is evenly distributed across a 24 hour period. This infers the following two assumptions: The average peak hour traffic volume is 1/24th of the AADT.

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 29 of 66

75 % of the of the AADT travels between 6 am and 12 am (the 18 hour period for traffic calculation). All road trains heading north from the cnr of Great Northern Hwy and Port Hedland Rd travel to the existing public berth. All vehicles travelling on Cajarina Rd continue along Finucane Rd to Finucane Island. Posted traffic speeds are as per the 2007 traffic count Table A-2: AADT Traffic Volumes Used in Traffic Noise Study

2004-5 ESTIMATED 2010 PREDICTED 2015-2020 PREDICTED EXISTING VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Light Heavy Road Light Heavy Road Light Heavy Road Vehicles Vehicles Trains Vehicles Vehicles Trains Vehicles Vehicles Trains 1 7400 745 408 8584 745 408 12876 1118 612 2 4050 565 366 4698 570 1188 7047 855 1782 3 7215 335 0 8369 335 0 12554 503 0 4 7130 768 384 8271 768 1008 12407 1152 1512 7 1500 160 180 1740 170 372 2610 255 558 8 4475 573 378 5191 573 1002 7787 860 1503 9 1695 185 276 1966 185 900 2949 278 1350 11 7303 1180 408 8471 1180 408 12707 1770 612 12 5739 831 408 6657 831 408 9986 1247 612 13 4643 496 408 5386 496 408 8079 744 612 14 1815 280 144 2105 280 144 3158 420 216 15 2265 305 216 2627 305 1044 3941 458 1566 Table A-3: Road References Used in the Table A. 1

1 Port Hedland Rd 2 Pinga St, between Cajarina Rd and Great Northern Hwy 4 Great Northern Hwy, between Wallwork Rd and Port Hedland Rd 7 Great Northern Hwy, South 8 Great Northern Hwy, between Cajarina Rd and Wallwork Rd 9 Great Northern Hwy, east of Port Hedland Rd 11 Port Hedland Rd 12 Port Hedland Rd 13 Port Hedland Rd 14 Pinga St, north-west of Cajarina Rd 15 Cajarina Rd and Finucane Rd

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 30 of 66

13 12 11

15 4 9

Refer Figure A 2

Figure A 1: Port Hedland Region Showing Modelled Roads

2 15 4 8

Figure A 2: Port Hedland Region Showing Modelled Roads

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland - Noise Study Page 31 of 66

APPENDIX B - NOISE CONTOUR MAPS FOR PORT HEDLAND

List of Noise Contour Maps

B1. Base Case (2004 – 2005) –Traffic Noise B2. Scenario 1 (2010) –Traffic Noise B3. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) –Traffic Noise B4. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 1 – Traffic Noise B5. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2 – Traffic Noise

B6. Base Case (2004 – 2005) –Traffic Noise – Large Scale B7. Scenario 1 (2010) –Traffic Noise - Large Scale B8. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) –Traffic Noise- Large Scale

B9. Base Case (2004 – 2005) – Industrial Noise B10. Scenario 1 (2010) – Industrial Noise B11. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) – Industrial Noise B12. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 1 – Industrial Noise B13. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2 – Industrial Noise

B14. Base Case (2004 – 2005) – Industrial Noise - Large Scale B15. Scenario 1 (2010) – Industrial Noise - Large Scale B16. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) – Industrial Noise - Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 32 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists

Figure B 1: Traffic Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 33 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2010 - Predicted Future Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 2: Traffic Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 34 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2015 - Predicted Future Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 3: Traffic Noise – Scenario 2 – 2015-2020

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 35 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Increase Map - Increased Noise from Base Case to Scenario 1 - Year 2010

Noise increase LA10,24hr dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 4: Traffic Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 1 (2010)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 36 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Increase Map - Increased Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2 - Year 2015

Noise increase LA10,24hr dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 00125250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 5: Traffic Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 2 (2015-2020)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 37 of 66

Port Hedland Region Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists

Figure B 6: Traffic Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 38 of 66

Port Hedland Region Year 2010 - Scenario 1 - Predicted Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists

Figure B 7: Traffic Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 39 of 66

Port Hedland Region Year 2015 - Scenario 2 - Predicted Traffic Noise

Noise levels LA10,24hr dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists

Figure B 8: Traffic Noise – Scenario 2 – 2015-2020 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 40 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 0 125 250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 9: Industrial Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 41 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 0 125 250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 10: Industrial Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 42 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Year 2015 - Predicted Scenario 2 Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 0 125 250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 11: Industrial Noise – Scenario 2 – 2015-2020

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 43 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 1 - Year 2010

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 0 125 250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 12: Industrial Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 1 (2010)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 44 of 66

Port Hedland and Nelson Point Noise Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2 - Year 2015

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:25000 0 125 250 500 750 1000 m

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 13: Industrial Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 2 (2015-2020)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 45 of 66

Port Hedland Region Noise Contour Map - Industrial Noise Base Case - Year 2004 - 2005

NoiseNoise increase Level LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 14: Industrial Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 46 of 66

Port Hedland Region Noise Contour Map - Industrial Noise Scenario 1 - Year 2010

NoiseNoise increas Level e LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 15: Industrial Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 47 of 66

Port Hedland Region Noise Contour Map - Industrial Noise Scenario 1 - Year 2015

Noise Level Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:50000 000.30.5 1 1.5 2 km

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure B 16: Industrial Noise – Scenario 1 – 2015-2020 – Large Scale

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 48 of 66

APPENDIX C - NOISE CONTOUR MAPS FOR WEDGEFIELD

List of Maps

C1. Base Case (2004 – 2005) –Traffic Noise C2. Scenario 1 (2010) –Traffic Noise C3. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) –Traffic Noise C4. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 1 – Traffic Noise C5. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2 – Traffic Noise

C6. Base Case (2004 – 2005) – Industrial Noise C7. Scenario 1 (2010) – Industrial Noise C8. Scenario 2 (2015 – 2020) – Industrial Noise C9. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 1 – Industrial Noise C10. Increase from Base Case to Scenario 2 – Industrial Noise

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 49 of 66

LA10,24hr,dB(A)

Figure C 1: Traffic Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 50 of 66

LA10,24hr,dB(A)

Figure C 2: Traffic Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 51 of 66

LA10,24hr,dB(A)

Figure C 3: Traffic Noise – Scenario 2 – 2015-2020

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 52 of 66

Wedgefield Increase Map- Increased Noise from Base Case to Scenario 1 - 2010

Noise increase

< 0.0 0.0<= < 0.5 0.5<= < 1.0 1.0<• < 1.5 1.5<= < 2.0 2.0<= < 2.5 2.5<= < 3.0 3.0<= < 3.5 3.5<= < 4.0 4.0<= < 4.5 4.5<= < 5.0 5.0<=

Length Scale 1: 15000 0- 1CD :DJ m:J em- Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists ltd

Figure C 4: Traffic Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 1 (2015-2020)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 53 of 66

Wedgefield Increase Map- Increased Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2- 2015

Noise increase

< 0.0 0.0<= < 0.5 0.5<= < 1.0 1.0<• < 1.5 1.5<= < 2.0 2.0<= < 2.5 2.5 <= < 3.0 3.0<= < 3.5 3.5<= < 4.0 4.0 <= < 4.5 4.5<= < 5.0 5.0<=

Length Scale 1: 15000 0- 1CD :DJ m:J em- Date: 23 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists ltd

Figure C 5: Traffic Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 2 (2015-2020)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 54 of 66

Wedgefield Year 2004 - 2005 - Estimated Base Case Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:15000 0 100 200 400 600

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure C 6: Industrial Noise – Base Case – 2004/2005

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 55 of 66

Wedgefield Year 2010 - Predicted Scenario 1 Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:15000 0 100 200 400 600

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure C 7: Industrial Noise – Scenario 1 – 2010

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 56 of 66

Wedgefield Year 2015 - Predicted Scenario 2 Industrial Noise

Noise levels LA10, dB(A)

<36 36 <= <38 38 <= <40 40 <= <42 42 <= <44 44 <= <46 46 <= <48 48 <= <50 50 <= <52 52 <= <54 54 <= <56 56 <= <58 58 <= <60 60 <= <62 62 <= <64 64 <=

Length Scale 1:15000 0 100 200 400 600

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure C 8: Industrial Noise – Scenario 2 – 2015-2020

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 57 of 66

Wedgefield Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 1 - Year 2010

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <0.5 0.5 <= <1.0 1.0 <= <1.5 1.5 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <2.5 2.5 <= <3.0 3.0 <= <3.5 3.5 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <4.5 4.5 <= <5.0 5.0 <=

Length Scale 1:15000 00100200 400 600

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure C 9: Industrial Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 1 (2010)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 58 of 66

Wedgefield Increase Map - Increased Industrial Noise from Base Case to Scenario 2 - Year 2015

Noise increase LA10, dB(A)

<0.0 0.0 <= <2.0 2.0 <= <4.0 4.0 <= <6.0 6.0 <= <8.0 8.0 <= < 10.0 10.0 <= < 12.0 12.0 <= < 14.0 14.0 <= < 16.0 16.0 <= < 18.0 18.0 <= < 20.0 20.0 <= < 22.0 22.0 <= < 24.0 24.0 <= < 26.0 26.0 <= < 28.0 28.0 <=

Length Scale 1:15000 0 100 200 400 600

Date: 30 May 2007

VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd

Figure C 10: Industrial Noise - Increase Map from Base Case to Scenario 2 (2015-2020)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 59 of 66

APPENDIX D - INDUSTRIAL NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 60 of 66

Operations and Activities included in the SKM Scoping exercise Operations and Activities taking place on Operations and Activities taking place Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA) outside of Port Authority (PHPA) Land Land BHP Billiton Iron Ore Council Class 2 Inert Landfill Hope Downs – Iron Ore Shire Incenerator / furnace facility Fortescue Metal Group – Iron Ore Airport Dampier Salt – Salt Swimming Pool Newcrest (Nifty) – Copper Concentrate Power Generation and Transfer – Port Hedland Power Station Consolidated Minerals (Woodi Woodi Mine) – Manganese Rail Lines Consolidated Minerals – Chromite Port Hedland (DEC) Licensed Premises – Ready Mix Holdings Mobile Crushing Plant Unimin Australia – Feldspar (No 5) Livestock shiploading and transport Port – Boating and Shipping Port – Heliport

Industrial Noise Sources Modelled

Base Case Scenario 1 Scenario 2 2004 - 2005 2010 2015 - 2020 BHP Billiton Iron Ore PACE 2 RGP 4 RGP 5 Hope Downs – Iron Car Dumper Ore 2 Stockpiles 2 Stackers NIL NIL 1 Reclaimer Conveyor to Shiploader Shiploader Fortescue Metal 2 Car Dumpers 2 Car Dumpers Group – Iron Ore 4 Stackers 5 Stackers NIL 4 Stockpiles 5 Stockpiles Conveyor to Shiploader Conveyor to Shiploader 3 Shiploaders 4 Shiploaders

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 61 of 66

Dampier Salt – Salt Conveyors from truck Conveyors from truck Conveyors from truck dump to stockpile dump to stockpile dump to stockpile Stacker Stacker Stacker Conveyors to Berth 3 Conveyors to Berth 3 Conveyors to Berth 3 Shiploading at Berth 3 Shiploading at Berth 3 Shiploading at Berth 3 Minimal growth expected Minimal growth expected above Base Case above Base Case Newcrest (Nifty) – 1 Truck unloading 1 Truck unloading 1 Truck unloading Copper Concentrate 2 Front End Loaders 2 Front End Loaders 2 Front End Loaders Contained within Contained within Contained within stockpile stockpile stockpile building/enclosure building/enclosure building/enclosure Shiploading at Berth 1 Shiploading at Berth 1 Shiploading at Berth 1 2.8 dB(A) added to Base 3.7 dB(A) added to Base Case to allow for Case to allow for increased production increased production Consolidated Minerals 2 Front End Loaders at 2 Front End Loaders at 2 Front End Loaders at (Woodi Woodi Mine) Wharf Wharf Wharf – Manganese

Consolidated Minerals 1 Front End Loader 1 Front End Loader 1 Front End Loader – Chromite Unimin Australia – 1 Front End Loader at 1 Front End Loader at 1 Front End Loader at Feldspar Wharf Wharf Wharf Livestock shiploading Not considered. This is a and transport minor and occasional source – estimated frequency once per year Port – Boating and 1 Tug in Harbour 2 Tugs in Harbour 2 Tugs in Harbour Shipping Public Boat Ramp not considered to be significant. Port – Heliport 4 Take-off / Landing 8 Take-off / Landing 8 Take-off / Landing events per day events per day events per day Considered qualitatively Considered qualitatively Considered qualitatively in discussion in discussion in discussion Council Class 2 Inert 1 Front End Loader 1 Front End Loader 1 Front End Loader Landfill Shire Incenerator / Negligible Noise source Negligible Noise source Negligible Noise source furnace facility Airport Boeing 717 Boeing 717 Boeing 737 Considered qualitatively Considered qualitatively Considered qualitatively in discussion in discussion in discussion

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 62 of 66

Swimming Pool Negligible Noise source Negligible Noise source Negligible Noise source Power Generation and Considered as single point Considered as single point Considered as single point Transfer – Port source source source Hedland Power Station Rail Lines Dumping considered as Dumping considered as Dumping considered as part of Ore plants part of Ore plants part of Ore plants Port Hedland (DEC) Not considered – further Not considered – further Not considered – further Licensed Premises – information on location information on location information on location Ready Mix Holdings being sought. being sought. being sought. Mobile Crushing Plant (No 5)

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 63 of 66

APPENDIX E - INDICATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 64 of 66

Smith

\\ ~Or~T.tit DI'""''\9No. Port Hedland Figure 4-1 -~l<"'f'lf ...... Scenario 1 ~)MMJIOf T.-r.tet. Ptl"wA...... ,ucoo' Cumulative- · Assessment I (2004 - 2005) Port _SBM __Pll Qell;.'t8.,..,._ .&$00 Fto Gell::..~~ Port Study 1 Infrastructure C.DTCI$M-~· I "-w.w.~

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 65 of 66

Smith Legend D Supporting lnfras.tructure \\~ 0 Berth

Sinr.IMifniltiiMrn Port He dland Scen a rio 2 auo.~IOidtr«r...... , w. .."** 800' Cumul• tive A ssessm ent -- 2010 Projec ted _SKM Ph •~·~ l'"u otO:at~ - I ---..- 1 Port Study Po rt Inf rastruc ture

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008

Cumulative Impact Assessment Study for the Port Areas of Port Hedland Noise Study Page 66 of 66

\ ~~ ~~. . ·~~, '

Smith

\\ ~OmloiJtftle. tn"""' ... Port He dland tht~KniOIIC"tt1 Scenario 3 IFigur e 4-3 ::t)AclfltittT~.'"""w"....,n~•eoo• Cumulative A ssessm e nt _BM l'\ott20e"'~ Fe•otl9~110:l$ - I (2015 • 2020) Projecte d -~• --- 1Port Study Port Infrastructure =.;:.::,. ,_.....,_...... ,.. ... J_

Doc.No.:70Q-04-6330-TRP-245116-4 8 April 2008