Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project: Community Information and Feedback Session

Summary of Outcomes Report Summary of Outcomes Report

29 July 2014

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE:

Director Susan Rudland Senior Consultant Col Mackin Graduate Consultant Elizabeth Robertson Job Code SPP20813 Report Number Outcomes report

Urbis’s Public Policy team has received ISO 20252 Certification for the provision of public policy research and evaluation, social planning, community consultation, market research and communications research

© Urbis Pty Ltd ABN 50 105 256 228

All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission.

You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report.

URBIS Australia Asia Middle East urbis.com.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 2

2 Overview of the process ...... 3 2.1 Community Information and Feedback Session (CIFS) ...... 3

3 Summary of Feedback ...... 5 3.1 Participation ...... 5 3.2 Feedback received ...... 5

4 Conclusion ...... 10

Appendix A Newspaper Advertisement

Appendix B Display Panels

Appendix C Recent Newsletters – May and July

Appendix D Presentation

Appendix E Feedback from the public meeting

Appendix F Feedback Form

Appendix G Event Photos

TABLES: Table 1 – Feedback received via feedback forms ...... 7

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

1 Introduction

Jemena is required to undertake sediment remediation in Kendall Bay, New South Wales. Sediments within Kendall Bay have been impacted with the by-products of the former gas works facility operated by AGL at its Mortlake site (now known as Breakfast Point).

The remediation of Kendall Bay is required by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to address health and environmental risks posed by contamination, via a Voluntary Remediation Agreement signed by AGL in 2004. When the AGL Group was split up in late 2006, Jemena inherited the Group’s obligations with the NSW EPA.

The sediment remediation project is informed by due diligence studies, technical analysis, and community and stakeholder consultation.

Community and stakeholder consultation includes:

. A community consultation website – www.kendallbayremediation.com.au . A project 1800 number and email address . Community newsletters . Community surveys . Stakeholder briefings . Community meetings . Community information and feedback sessions . A Community Liaison Group. The latest Community Information and Feedback Session (CIFS) was held on 29 July 2014. It aimed to:

. Display factual information regarding the proposed remediation works . Provide an informal one-to-one opportunity for individuals to ask questions of the project team and consultants and clarify concerns . Invite questions and responses in a formal meeting format . Invite and collate feedback and comment. This report documents the session and a summary of feedback received through feedback forms.

URBIS 2 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

2 Overview of the process

2.1 COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK SESSION (CIFS) The Session was held on Tuesday, 29 February 2014, from 4pm – 9pm at the Massey Park Golf Club, Concord. There were three components:

. A pre-CIFS session with invited government representatives from 4pm – 4.30pm

. A drop-in information display and feedback session between 4.30pm – 7.30pm (participants to come at any time, view the display and ask questions of the project team one-to-one)

. A formal presentation from Jemena and technical consultants, ERM, and a facilitated Q&A session between 7.30 – 9.00pm.

Attendance at either or both of the public components was open to all community members.

The event was promoted through:

. A community newsletter – to a catchment of 4,400 local homes and businesses in Breakfast Point, Mortlake, Cabarita and Concord on 19 July 2014

. The project website homepage www.kendallbayremediation.com.au

. Email invites sent to a stakeholder database of community members who registered for updates at past consultation events, community groups and local businesses

. Email invites sent to members of the Kendall Bay Community Liaison Group

. Advertisement in the Burwood Scene, circulation – 65,000 (refer to Appendix A)

. A letter invitation to government stakeholders – the Mayor, Councillors, the Facilities Management Officer, Director of Planning, the Manager of Health, Building and Environment at Canada Bay Council, the Special Project Manager for Contaminated Sites from the Environmental Protection Agency and local State and Federal Members of Parliament.

At the session, information about the project was available in a number of formats, including:

. A1 information display panels (refer to Appendix B)

. Display panels printed in A4 booklet handouts (refer to Appendix B)

. A4 copies of the most recent community newsletters (refer to Appendix C)

. A PowerPoint presentation (refer to Appendix D).

Feedback boxes were provided around the room where people could post questions and comments. None were received.

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL 3

The Session was attended by:

NAME COMPANY

Ian Israelsohn, General Manager, Policy & External Affairs Jemena

Tyrone Singleton, Manager, Environmental Performance, Health, Safety, Environment and Quality Jemena

Jeff Williams, Project Manager Jemena

Madhvi Betigeri, Senior Advisor Environment and Contaminated Land Jemena

Katrina Summersett, Manager, Environmental Strategy, Reporting and Assurance Jemena

Adam Coburn, Principal Planner ERM

Susan Rudland, Colin Mackin and Elizabeth Robertson, Community Consultation Team Urbis

Participants could provide feedback direct to the consultation team and project consultants, and in a formal feedback form offered to all and available on the project website. There was an option to hand in the feedback form on the night or to take a reply paid envelope and send the form back.

URBIS 4 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

3 Summary of Feedback

3.1 PARTICIPATION A total of 28 people attended the drop-in session, and 24 people (18 of which were not currently on our stakeholder database) provided their contact details for future project information and updates. The majority of those who provided their contact details came from the Breakfast Point or Cabarita areas with the remainder from the Mortlake, Concord and Kendall Inlet areas.

Participants spent varying lengths of time at the session. During the pre-CIFS briefing session, three government representatives were present. These were the Manager Statutory Planning of City of Canada Bay Council, the State Member of Parliment and an EPA representative. Approximately 13 community members stayed on or arrived for the formal presentation and these people have mostly all attended previous forums. The State member, an EPA government representative and 2 Thiess employees also attended the public presentation.

People were offered a feedback form with a reply paid envelope, to provide feedback on the evening or at a later date. One completed form was received at the event and five were posted after the event. One email was received providing positive feedback on the session. No questions were lodged in the question boxes on the night, rather, many questions were asked of the staff during the drop-in session and also during the formal meeting. All questions have been integrated into the Issues and Response Log uploaded to the project website (www.kendallbayremediation.com.au).

3.2 FEEDBACK RECEIVED A range of views were expressed during the evening about a variety of issues.

Some people questioned the need for remediation and wanted more detail on the proposed timing of the project. People also asked questions about the functionality and appearance of both the Bay and the Tennyson Road site at the conclusion of the project. Some attendees were interested in further matters including providing site security, facilitating scout involvement in the mangrove remediation and enquiring about potential remediation of nearby residential land.

Participants during the drop-in session wanted to know:

. how does the Water Treatment Plant work and how is the water separated and returned

. when did the Tennyson Road site become available

. how will the site at Tennyson Road be used after project completion

. the number of trucks and the traffic counts

. the options for remediating around the mangroves and when will this occur

. when the project works will commence

A number of concerns were raised during the public meeting, including reporting on the process of examining alternative sites for the treatment and transport of sediment. Concern over traffic generation and noise levels also generated questions. Questions regarding ecology focused around the silt curtain design and what the bay will be like post-remediation.

Participants during the meeting wanted to know:

. hours of work (including Saturdays) and how this affects noise and traffic modelling and ongoing conditions

. justification of the chosen treatment site and how this was determined in conjunction with authorities during assessment of alternative sites

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL 5

. options for barging treated sediment to other locations before using road transport

. the condition, appearance and functionality of the project area at project completion

. what will generate noise and whether this noise will exceed requirements during existing noisy periods

. how the silt curtain works and how posts will be driven into the sediment.

The comments from the public meeting are available for review in Appendix E.

URBIS 6 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Feedback provided in the six feedback forms has been transcribed and collated below. Any comments have been transcribed as verbatim. A copy of the feedback form is available in Appendix F.

TABLE 1 – FEEDBACK RECEIVED VIA FEEDBACK FORMS

Q1. How did you find out . Email – 1 about the CIFS today? . Newsletter – 2 . Email from Friends of Cabarita Park - 1 . Letter box drop – 1 . Letter box – also CLG member - 1

Q2. Are you a . Resident of Breakfast Point - 4 Resident/Worker/Business . Resident of Mortlake – 1 Owner? . Other – Kendall Inlet - 1

Q3. What is your view of . No response - 2 the project overall? . It now looks appropriate for regeneration. The traffic from local area to Parramatta Road still looks like a problem. . Very concerned about preservation of mangroves and not convinced that they cannot be saved. We need mature mangrove replacement if all else fails. . The original plan to use Cabarita Park was correct. The new plan involves extra traffic movements with dust and odour problems in a residential area. . Necessary – planning in early stages. Q4. Do you have any . No response – 4 specific comments on the . Believe this will cause problems in a residential area. methodology or the . Having visited the Platypus Project I am confident that if similar studies and preliminary findings from mechanisms are effected, the outcome will be satisfactory. the technical studies?

Acoustic analysis:

Air quality (odour and . No response - 4 dust): . Good analysis for a positive result. . Believe this will still be a problem.

Transportation: . No response - 4 . Still have concerns: road damage and noise.

. The traffic is also heavy and does not need another 1% increase.

Marine ecology: . No response - 5 . The processes are encouraging after speaking with EPA + Environment planner.

Soil and water quality: . No response - 5 . Look forward to it being safely replaced.

Hydrology assessment: . No response - 5 . Positive.

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL 7

Social impact . No response - 4 assessment: . Some concerns especially for those on the traffic route. . This project will impact upon all residents and visitors.

Waste management: . No response - 5 . Some concerns especially for those on the traffic route.

Aboriginal and European . No response – 5 heritage: . Fine.

Preliminary hazard . No response – 5 analysis: . Now looks ok.

Visual impacts: . No response – 5 . End product will be the determinant.

Q5. What information . No response – 3 would you like about the . Effect on mangroves. project? . Continue close contact with residents. . In due course we need to know more about post-project planning, risks and

implications generally.

Q6. What is the best way . No response – 1 to consult with you about . Newsletter, website – 3 the project? . Newsletter, face-to-face, local media – 1 . Other – CLG - 1

Q7. Do you have any other . No response – 2 comments on the project? . Suggest try to bring in community to the regeneration so there is ownership once project is complete.

. Keep noise levels to a minimum, please. Do not want work to be undertaken on Saturdays/weekends. . We were informed that work would take place from 7 – 5pm weekdays and 8 – 1pm on Saturdays. Not happy about weekend work. . Not at this stage.

Q9. Thinking of today’s Agree Disagree session, please respond to a) I have been able to find out information about the project 6 0 the following statements: b) The information provided was relevant 6 0

c) The information was clearly presented 6 0 d) My questions were answered 5 0

e) I was able to provide my thoughts and feedback 6 0 f) I felt that my feedback was listened to 4 0 g) The project team and facilitators were helpful 5 0

URBIS 8 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Q10. Would you like to . Yes – 4 receive further information . No – 1 and updates? . As CLG member, details are already available.

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL 9

4 Conclusion

This report has documented a Community Information and Feedback Session (CIFS) for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, held on 29 July 2014. This is just one of a number of ongoing consultation activities providing information and inviting feedback throughout the project process.

Twenty-eight people attended the drop-in session and seventeen attended the public meeting.

There were mixed views regarding a range of aspects of the Project. The remediation site, transport options, traffic, noise and project hours and timing were all considered key issues by those who attended. Questions also arose regarding the condition of the Bay and processing site at the conclusion of the project and in the post-remediation stage.

The Session confirmed the importance of:

. Communicating broadly about the proposed remediation on an ongoing basis . Providing information and materials in alternative ways – through the website, newsletters and stakeholder briefings . Ensuring display materials, presentations and feedback forms and outcomes are available on the website for others to review . Extending an open offer to meet and discuss the project with community groups, body corporates and businesses.

This summary of outcomes report will be uploaded to the project website for broader interest and reference, alongside all previous feedback.

It will also be provided to the consultant team undertaking technical studies for the Environmental Impact Statement, for their consideration.

URBIS 10 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL 11

URBIS 12 CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Appendix A Newspaper Advertisement

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

nn nn

nn nn nn

Appendix B Display Panels

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 1 of 23

Welcome to the Community Information and Feedback Session for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project. Today is an opportunity to find out more about the project and EIS process, identify key issues and provide feedback. This session is one of a number of consultation activities being undertaken, including stakeholder briefings, community surveys, community meetings, newsletters, a project website and a Community Liaison Group. The Community Information and Feedback Session is an informal drop-in and display from 4.30–7.30pm. All are invited to stay for a presentation and community meeting, commencing 7.30–9.00pm.

Who is Jemena? Who is here today? Have your say Jemena is an Australian infrastructure JEMENA ERM (PLANNING AND Your ideas and suggestions are company that builds, owns and maintains important. You can provide a combination of major electricity, gas and ÑÑ Ian Israelsohn ENVIRONMENTAL feedback in a number of ways: water assets. (General Manager, Policy & IMPACT ASSESSMENT) External Affairs) ÑÑ Talk with members of the Jemena was formed following the ÑÑ Steve Laister consultant team and give us acquisition of assets and businesses ÑÑ Tyrone Singleton (Director) your feedback from Alinta Ltd, including the former (Manager, Environmental ÑÑ Fill out a feedback form and post AGL Group’s gas infrastructure business. Performance) ÑÑ Adam Coburn it in the Feedback Box – or in Jemena is currently owned by the (Principal Planner) ÑÑ Jeff Williams the Reply Paid envelope provided State Grid Corporation of China and the (Project Manager) Singapore Power Group. URBIS COMMUNITY ÑÑ Katrina Summersett CONSULTATION Jemena operates in New South Wales, (Manager, Environmental Visit the project web-page Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. In ÑÑ Susan Rudland (Consultation) Strategy, Reporting and www.kendallbayremediation.com.au NSW, Jemena owns and manages gas Assurance) ÑÑ Colin Mackin (Consultation) transmission and distribution pipelines. These gas pipelines enable the transfer ÑÑ Madhvi Betigeri ÑÑ Elizabeth Robertson of natural gas directly to over one million (Senior Advisor Environment (Consultation) Call us on 1800 266 901 NSW households and businesses. and Contaminated Land)

Email us on [email protected]

Jemena Operating Location

ASSETS 100% OWNED & MANAGED BY JEMENA

1 Jemena Electricity Distribution Network

3 2 Jemena Gas Distribution Network

3 Queensland Gas pipeline

4 Eastern Gas Pipeline

5 VicHub

6 Colongra Gas Facility 6

7 7 Rosehill Recycled Water Scheme

2 ASSETS PARTIALLY OWNED BY JEMENA 1 8 8 ActewAGL (50%) 9 9 United Energy Distribution (34%) 4 5

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 2 of 23

Project Background and Context

Fig 1: KENDALL BAY AND SURROUNDING AREA Kendall Bay

Kendall Bay is located on the Parramatta River in the City of Canada Bay Parramatta North Ryde Local Government Area. It is approximately 10 km from the CBD and sits between the suburbs of Cabarita and Breakfast Point. Kendall Bay Why is remediation required? Sydney CBD

The proposed remediation site is located in the headwaters of Kendall Bay Bankstown (Sydney Harbour), which is adjacent to the Breakfast Point development site. Kendall Bay The contamination of the sediments in Kendall Bay is the result of industrial discharge from the adjacent former AGL Mortlake Gasworks site Site (the previous name for Breakfast Point). The land at Breakfast Point was remediated in 2002. The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) then focused on remediating contaminated sediments within areas of Kendall Bay. Jemena inherited the responsibility to remediate Kendall Bay as a result of various corporate transactions involving AGL. The requirement to remediate Kendall Bay has been considered over several years:

2001 Kendall Bay was historically used for loading and unloading coal and Fig 2: APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE REMEDIATION SITE AND THE REMEDIATION AREAS other materials associated with the former AGL Mortlake gasworks 140 Tennyson Road 2004 AGL completes initial investigations to confirm contamination of the Bay. EPA declares the sediments (200 m) from foreshore as significantly contaminated land as per Section 11 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. 2005 AGL entered into a voluntary remediation agreement (VRA) with the EPA, to investigate and remediate parts of Kendall Bay. 2006 The AGL Group was split up and Jemena inherited the obligation to remediate

2007 Human Health Risk Assessment completed and agreed to by NSW Zone B EPA and NSW Ministry of Health. Legend

NSW EPA amends the existing regulation of the site to a Remediation 140 Tennyson Road

Order (Do Not Disturb) which specifies the requirement for remediation Declared Area within the Declared Area (remediation to be based on the VRA accepted Proposed Remediation Areas by the EPA in 2005). 055 110 220 Meters Zone A

Note: Declared and proposed remediation Why remediate at all? What about the no areas approximate only remediation option? The Remediation Order (2007) issued by the NSW EPA regarding the Declared Area includes a requirement on Jemena to ensure remediation does occur. The ‘No Remediation’ option is, therefore, not an option. The requirement to remediate Kendall Bay has been considered over several years

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 3 of 23

Project Background and Context continued...

Why these areas? Why not remediate the Risk assessments entire bay? The remediation areas include: The remediation areas were identified by the EPA as a result of numerous ÑÑ Zone A, the area of sediments at the southern-most end of Kendall Bay where environmental investigation and detail risk assessments involving the EPA, a stand of mangroves have become established. This area is approximately 2 the NSW Ministry of Health (formerly the NSW Department of Health) and 10,017m . a number of technical experts. ÑÑ Zone B, with an irregular shape and extends a distance of 65 m along the shoreline north from the southern edge of the former coal wharf and out a They were identified as important to remediate because: distance of 55 m. This area is approximately 3,125m2. ÑÑ The identified areas are considered to represent levels of contamination that are a potential health and ecological risk Investigations were conducted in 2006, 2011 and 2013 to determine the Health Investigation Level (HIL) and Ecological Investigation Level (EIL) of contaminants ÑÑ Contamination poses risks to human health if exposure occurs over in Kendall Bay. These assessments were undertaken in accordance with NSW extended periods of time EPA guidelines and recommendations (NSW Department of Environment and ÑÑ Contamination poses risks to the surrounding aquatic environment Conservation, 2006). ÑÑ Pollution in the other areas of the Declared Area have been compared to background concentrations of pollution in major waterways across The contamination investigations identified Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) Sydney Harbour and have been found to be comparable within the larger Declared Area, including: ÑÑ Studies have shown that the remaining sediments across most of the ÑÑ The southern end of Kendall Bay Declared Area do not pose an unacceptable ecological or human health ÑÑ The western side of Kendall Bay, particularly near the former coal and coke risk. wharves. ÑÑ The remediation of the identified areas will therefore address EPA and Contaminants can make contact with potential receptors via a number of different Ministry of Health risk criteria. interactions. These are known as exposure pathways. The exposure pathways What is meant by ecological or human include: ÑÑ Skin contact with contaminated sediments and river water health risk? ÑÑ Swallowing of contaminated sediments and river water Ecological Risk Assessment: is a set of formal, scientific methods for ÑÑ Eating fish and oysters contaminated by sediments. defining and estimating the probabilities and magnitudes of adverse Inhalation of dust from contaminated sediment is not considered a potential impacts on plants, animals and/or the ecology of a specified area posed by exposure pathway given the type of “heavy” contaminants identified in the a particular stressor(s) and the frequency of the exposure to the stressor(s). Declared Area (tar deposits, coal, oil bitumen and asphalt). Reference: Schedule B5a Guideline of Ecological Risk Assessment, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (as amended 2013) The investigations found sediments in the Declared Area to be contaminated at Human Health risk assessment: is the process of estimating the potential high concentrations that exceeded the HILs, EILs and typical background levels for impact of a chemical, biological or physical agent on a specified human sediments in this part of the Parramatta River. The contaminants of concern are population system under a specific set of conditions. Quantitative (health) residual tar, coal, oil, bitumen and asphalt compounds. risk assessment is a process used to inform and assist the contaminated River water quality shows no evidence of any significant contamination except at land decision-making process by modelling the dose or exposure of humans one localised area near the shoreline of the former coal wharf, where the highest to observed site contamination. contaminant concentrations have been measured. Reference: Schedule B4 Guideline of Site-Specific Health Risk Assessment Methodology, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (as amended 2013).

In studies of the investigation area in and around Kendall Bay, the human Fig 5: EVALUATION OF REMEDIATION ZONES health risk assessment has modelled how humans of different age groups undertaking recreational activities in the area may be affected by contaminated sediments. These models have shown levels of contaminants are not acceptable based on relevant guidelines. What kind of contaminants are we talking about? The contaminants of concern include poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). PAHs commonly occur in tar deposits, coal and oil and may also be found in everyday items such as overcooked barbecue meat (at very low levels). TPHs are a mixture of hydrocarbons found in petroleum based products. The TPH typically found in gasworks waste is called ‘heavy end TPH’ or ‘semi-volatile TPH’. It is considered heavier due to the higher number of carbon molecules in each compound, when compared to the ‘lighter TPH’ molecules, which have fewer carbon molecules in each compound. Where ‘light TPH’ is often found in petrol like that you put in your car, ‘heavy end TPH’ is often found in coal tars and gasworks waste, bitumen and asphalt.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 4 of 23

Access Points for Remediation Since 2009, Jemena has been exploring suitable This has included 46 sites in different locations, including all waterfront properties between Camellia and Sydney Harbour Bridge, plus potential locations east of the sites from which to access the remediation areas. Harbour Bridge and as far south as Port Kembla. The following map identifies the sites considered. R D M O N V A L E A P

I

T

T

W

Fig 3: SITES EVALUATED FOR THE ON-SITEWahroonga REMEDIATION WORKS A D St Ives T P R E A E C L R I F I A LAND ACCESS C V R

D H A W N 46 Y 1 Breakfast Point Development O

D M 2 Kendall Inlet Development R S L 3 Cabarita Park L I

H Cheltenham

D T R

WATER ACCESS N A E

N D N Y P A

E H R C Clarks Point Reserve, Sailing club P Epping I L I 4 White Bay Wharf 3, Balmain 26 H I L L S M T W Y L F S I and Woolwich Marina, Woolwich M A R S D E NR D C M 45

T H 5 White Bay Wharf 6, Balmain 27 Putney Park, Ryde W D W Y

R Y

6 Port Kembla, Illawarra region 28 Bayview Park, Canada Bay E CONDAMINE ST V O 7 Rozelle Bay 29 Kissing Point Park, Ryde C Chatswood J E Kendall Bay Boat Ramp and dAlboraB R I E N S R D A 8 Bridge Road sites, Blackwattle Bay 30 M N E A Manly Marina – Cabarita Point L S L 43 A D R N Berry's Bay, Woodleys Marina, Balls Kissing Point Park Boat Ramp, E Northbridge R 9 31 U C O T Head Road Waterview Street S V E 44

T U N L I E YW F H A G N I R R W A Parramatta P

P A C IF IC H W Y D 36 41 S

Exile Bay Boat Ramp, Bayview Park, 14 34 10 Wentworth Point, Burroway Road 32 R Concord, off Burwood Road 17 10 M 4 D 21 W E S 15 38 29 R Hen and Chicken Bay Boat Ramp, T E 31 Hunters R Y R N 13 I T A 11 RMS slipway, Hilly Street, Mortlake 33 Hen and Chicken Bay, opposite M 27 Hill M I L T Reginald Street W 11 22 Y 12 30 37 26 16 18 River Quays Marina, Hilly Street, Rhodes Boat Ramp, Blaxland Road, Newington 1 12 34 25 39 9 Mortlake Rhodes 23 35 3 20 Kirribilli SILVERWATER RD 2 Wentworth Point, 7 Burroway, Taplin Park Boat Ramp, Taplin Park, R D C I P M Y L O 24 13 35 28 Vaucluse Sydney Olympic Park Drummoyne 32 33 4 5 19 Guildford Rosehill (Camellia), Redmondis 12 R

14 36 Ermington Boat Ramp, Wharf Road D HOMEBUSH BAY DR Integrated Recycling Park SYDNEY Potts Point Y 40 42 R

15 Clyde refinery, Rosehill (Clyde) 37 Woolwich Boat Ramp 7 CBD R A

8 O N T Double

Wilson Park Boat Ramp, off E

U

16 Gore Hill terminal, Greenwich 38 T Burwood Glebe F I G S T Bay B Silverwater Road N

Croydon I

E Leichhardt R C

17 Silverwater Road, Ermington 39 Manns Pointt Boat Ramp, Greenwich T Woollahra

Site Location S I Hawthorn Canal Boat Ramp, Iron J O S E P H S T C I T Y R D T D 18 HMAS Platypus, Cremorne Point 40 D S Bondi 4km Cove R Potential Access Sites Y G N

W N R

H S I Burns Bay Boat Ramp, off Kooyong K E E T 19 Garden Island 41 T Road, Riverview M R H S U M E U E H W A Y H B 20 Cockatoo Island/ other islands 42 Rose Bay Boat Ramp E O Marrickville Kensington 21 HMAS Penguin, Balmoral 43 Little Manly Boat Ramp R Randwick 22 HMAS Waterhen, North Sydney 44 Tunks Bay Boat Ramp Site suitability is assessed using the following criteria: Kendall Bay or elsewhere on the 23 45 Forestville Boat Ramp ÑÑ Can it be accessed by barge? ÑÑ Is it an appropriate land use? harbour Sailing Club and Birkenhead Point ÑÑ Is there suitable truck access? ÑÑ Can the material for remediation be treated 24 46 Collaroy Boat Ramp Marina, Empire Marina Drummoyne ÑÑ Is it potentially available? on-site, before removal? 25 Sailing Club, Manns Point

Will Cabarita Park 140 Tennyson Road be used to carry In mid-2013, the property 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake (the If the application to undertake the remediation process at out remediation? Property) was identified as a potential alternative to Cabarita 140 Tennyson Road is approved, the following activities will Until recently, Cabarita Park was Park. Previous assessments of the Property had identified be undertaken: the only suitable location identified that this site was unavailable. ÑÑ Dredging (either by hydraulic dredge or other) to the for use as an access point and In August 2013 Jemena entered into an Options Agreement Property (Remediation Areas A and B within Kendall Bay) temporary works compound. to potentially purchase the Property, subject to the ÑÑ Dewatering of sediment (Tennyson Road) completion of a series of due diligence assessments. In ÑÑ Treatment and stabilisation of sediment (Tennyson Road) This option was presented to December 2013, Jemena decided to purchase the Property. ÑÑ Offsite (truck) transportation of treated sediment Council and State Agencies and The purchase of the Property is based on the view that its (Tennyson Road). discussed in community workshops use in the remediation of Kendall Bay is technically feasible. and meetings in late 2012. All activities, including any potential impacts, will be A detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required managed and mitigated to ensure compliance to all state In response to community concern before the Property can be used for the remediation of and local government requirements. This means that the over the use of Cabarita Park, Kendall Bay. remediation approach needs to meet EPA and any other Jemena committed to continue relevant regulatory requirements. The approach needs considering alternative access to, as far as practically possible, minimise and where points and temporary works sites. possible negate, any potential impacts on the surrounding community.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 5 of 23

The Planning Process

Fig 4: CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PLANNING PROCESS Previous planning proposal to Canada Bay Council Project application In the past, Jemena submitted a planning proposal to Canada Bay Council (the owner of Cabarita Park), for the temporary use and reclassification of a part of Cabarita Park to support remediation works. In December 2012, Council rejected the proposal. Design Jemena requested an independent review of this decision from the Joint Regional Planning Panel (in February 2013). The purchase of 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake and the intention to use this site for the temporary remediation works means that access to Cabarita Park is no longer Jemena’s preferred option and the Joint Regional Planning Panel application for a review of the decision by the Canada Bay Council has been withdrawn. The planning process now Environmental Jemena is applying for the necessary planning approvals to conduct the remediation as Investigations presented here. In May 2013, the Kendall Bay Remediation Project was declared a State Significant Development (SSD). This was done at the request of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) as part of the transition arrangements with previous Part 3A applications being phased out with the amendment of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Jemena is continuing to engage with the DP&I with respect to WE ARE Environmental 140 Tennyson Rd. HERE Assessment Process

The remediation works proposed for Kendall Bay require approval from the DP&I. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Now that a preferred site has been selected, Jemena has begun the process of preparing the project application, including all environmental specialist studies, for submission to the DP&I and EPA. This includes a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the development of a Remediation Action Plan (RAP). Remediation Works The Environmental Impact Statement The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required as part of the planning process under Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Part 4 of the Act applies to all State Significant Developments (SSD). As part of the application process, a set of Director General’s Requirements (DGRs) were issued previously to Jemena in response to the proposed remediation approach. The identification and purchase of 140 Tennyson Road requires a different approach to the sediment remediation. Therefore a new set of DGRs will be issued to Jemena. The DGRs inform the preparation of the EIS and include the requirements to prepare and undertake a number of technical assessments. The EIS identifies potential environmental and social impacts and recommends mitigation measures to manage identified impacts. These reports address issues such as: As part of the EIS process, a number of specialist environmental reports are prepared. ÑÑ Air quality (odour and dust) ÑÑ Community impact assessment ÑÑ Marine ecology ÑÑ Site security ÑÑ Soil and water quality ÑÑ Waste management ÑÑ Traffic ÑÑ Aboriginal and European ÑÑ Acoustic analysis (noise and heritage vibrations) ÑÑ Preliminary hazard analysis ÑÑ Flora and fauna ÑÑ Visual impact. ÑÑ Hydrology assessment

The application and all supporting Consideration of the range of issues identified during the preparation documentation will be publicly of the specialist reports informs a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment, which is delivered as part of the EIS process. exhibited for 30 days Once the project application has been lodged with the DP&I, the application and all supporting documentation will be publicly exhibited for 30 days and referred to state agencies for comment.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 6 of 23

The Remediation Action Plan (RAP) The RAP forms the basis on which all specialist studies will be undertaken. The purpose of the RAP is to document a remediation strategy that is capable of eliminating unacceptable risks to human health and the environment posed by the contaminated sediments in Kendall Bay.

Remediation goals and objectives The remediation goals and objectives align with those specified in NSW EPA guidelines.

Table 1: RAP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

GOALS OBJECTIVES

Ensure the remediated ÑÑ Protect the community and workers’ health at all times during the project site will be suitable for ÑÑ Protect the environment outside the remediation area at all times during remediation the proposed use and will ÑÑ Use technologies and methodologies that avoid the generation of environmental impacts as far as practically possible in preference to approaches that try to pose no unacceptable risk mitigate impacts to human health or to the ÑÑ Remediate all contaminated sediments that pose unacceptable risk to recreational users of the Declared Area and the organisms which live on, in, or near the environment seabed in the Declared Area ÑÑ Eliminate the generation of oily releases from the sediments and the generation of hydrocarbon sheens in the river water ÑÑ Allow organisms which live on, in, or near the seabed to re-colonise remediated areas ÑÑ Ensure the remediation approach provides a permanent solution and there is low risk of maintenance work being required

The remediation strategy is ÑÑ Use technologies that have been demonstrated to work and have a proven track record for remediating Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminated technically feasible sediment ÑÑ Ensure strategy is capable of accurately defining the scope of work and methodology required ÑÑ Negate the need for long-term monitoring of sediments after the completion of the remediation work and adopt a 12 month defects liability period

The proposed remediation ÑÑ Remove the EPA’s Remediation Order 23022 and Declaration of Remediation Site 21055 for Area 3335 (NSW EPA, 22 June 2007) work is environmentally ÑÑ Minimise waste generation and the unnecessary use of resources justifiable ÑÑ Minimise the project’s off-site footprint

The remediation strategy ÑÑ Obtain all necessary approvals prior to the commencement of the remediation work is consistent with relevant ÑÑ Remove the EPA’s Remediation Order & Declaration of Remediation Site laws, policies and guidelines ÑÑ Protect human health and the environment at all times during the project ÑÑ Minimise waste generation and the unnecessary use of resources ÑÑ All contaminated sediment is treated on-site prior to its removal ÑÑ Manage waste in accordance with the NSW EPA regulations and guidelines ÑÑ Reinstate the seabed in remediated areas to the existing bathymetry ÑÑ Ensure a proactive community engagement program is undertaken

Remediation approach The remediation approach has to consider numerous factors, including: ÑÑ Remediation area access points ÑÑ Methods to extract and remove sediments from the Bay ÑÑ A feasible technical methodology for remediation ÑÑ Where to dredge and where to conduct treatment of contaminated sediments ÑÑ Methods of remediation that will have the least amount of disruption and impact on the surrounding community and local area. In selecting an approach, the following issues have to be considered: ÑÑ Odour management ÑÑ Noise management ÑÑ Protecting river water quality ÑÑ Air quality ÑÑ Site access ÑÑ Impacts on local residents ÑÑ Characteristics of the Bay including depth, sediment type and tides (which influence ability to access the Bay by boat) >> Barge/boat limitations >> Tidal influences. Other considerations include traffic, visual, heritage, and any ecological impacts.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 7 of 23

Community Consultation Jemena has been consulting with the local community since 2012. This has included community meetings, information and feedback sessions, stakeholder briefings, community newsletters, a project website and a Community Liaison Group. Jemena is committed to continued consultation and has adopted the following principles to guide activities:

Consultation will be: PLANNING AND CONSULTATION ÑÑ Inclusive and transparent INVESTIGATION ÑÑ Include ongoing communication and two way ÑÑ Limited consultation with key ÑÑ ­ Written communication with consultation and feedback loops state and local government Breakfast Point community ÑÑ Involve a range of consultation methods Initial planning and stakeholders, focused on seeking permission to utilise investigation remediation method and access Breakfast Point land as a point of ÑÑ Engage with representative interests and diverse

2007-2011 options access perspectives

ÑÑ Consider equity and access ÑÑ Commencement of broader ÑÑ ­Meetings with NSW State ÑÑ Include direct involvement by Jemena. community consultation regarding Government, Council and technical access officers Consultation will include: Preparation of planning ÑÑ ­Establishment of project webpage, ÑÑ ­Stakeholder briefings proposal and preliminary 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­Community Information and ÑÑ Surveys environmental assessment ÑÑ ­Fact sheet to 3,600 homes Feedback Session ÑÑ Community newsletters ÑÑ ­Website updates and uploads JAN – DEC 2012 – DEC JAN ÑÑ Stakeholder briefings ÑÑ Community pop-up displays Planning review and ÑÑ ­ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Website updates (issues and ÑÑ Community meetings liaison with Council and ÑÑ ­ Newsletter 1 to 3,600 homes responses, workshop presentation ÑÑ Community Information and Feedback Sessions Department of Planning & ÑÑ ­ Community meetings x 2 uploaded) ÑÑ Community Liaison Group (CLG) meetings Environment (DP&E) ÑÑ ­ Jemena committed to look for ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings declaration of state alternative access options ÑÑ Project website. significant development

JAN – APR 2013 JAN by DP&E Consultation materials, presentations and summary feedback are uploaded to the website for broader ÑÑ ­ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ CLG letter to key stakeholders interest and reference. ÑÑ ­ Newsletters 2 and 3 to 4,000 ÑÑ ­ Meeting with bapca and Ongoing environmental homes community meeting Consultation activities are integrated in the following assessment and ÑÑ ­ CLG advertisement in Inner West ÑÑ ­ Website updates investigation of proposed project flowchart. Project stages may change depending Courier ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings options on future outcomes of investigations and application ÑÑ ­ CLG letterbox drop to 4,000 processes. 2013 – SEP MAY homes

ÑÑ ­ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Community Information ÑÑ ­ Newsletter 4 to 4000+ homes and Feedback Sessions ÑÑ ­ Establishment of CLG and 2 CLG ÑÑ Community meetings Detailed assessment of meetings ÑÑ ­ Website updates options ÑÑ ­ Local community surveys ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings to identify key issues and

OCT – DEC 2013 OCT – DEC consultation preferences

ÑÑ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Community meetings Reinitiate state significant ÑÑ Community­ Newsletters ÑÑ ­ Website updates development application ÑÑ ­ CLG meetings ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings

2014 and detailed environmental ÑÑ ­ Community information and ÑÑ Community pop-up stall impact assessment feedback sessions EARLY – MID EARLY ­ WE ARE Submission and public ÑÑ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Community meetings HERE Jemena is exhibition of state ÑÑ Community­ Newsletters ÑÑ ­ Website updates significant development ÑÑ ­ CLG meetings ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings

committed 2014 application and ÑÑ ­ Community information and environmental impact feedback sessions to continued MID – LATE assessment

ÑÑ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Community meetings consultation. ÑÑ Community­ Newsletters ÑÑ ­ Website updates Subject to decision ÑÑ ­ CLG meetings ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings ÑÑ ­ Community information and

EARLY 2015 EARLY feedback sessions

ÑÑ 1800 number and email address ÑÑ ­ Community meetings ÑÑ Community­ Newsletters ÑÑ ­ Website updates Remediation works ÑÑ ­ CLG meetings ÑÑ ­ Stakeholder briefings 2015 ÑÑ ­ Community information and

MID – LATE MID – LATE feedback sessions

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 8 of 23

The remediation works The remediation works involves the excavation of contaminated sediment from two areas known as Remediation Areas A and B.

Overview The remediation works involves the mechanical or hydraulic excavation of contaminated sediment from two areas (known as Remediation Areas A and B) along the foreshore area of Kendall Bay, and transport of these sediments, either by pipes or barges, to the remediation staging site at 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake. On arrival at the staging site, the water contained in the excavated material will be removed and treated before being returned to Kendall Bay, and the contaminated sediments stabilised and transported from the site via trucks to a licensed landfill area.

Hydraulic excavation uses a dredger which picks up seabed Mechanical excavation users a bucket dredger to pick up material with a clam shell bucket. The bucket can be sediment by mechanical means. positioned in a number of ways including suspended from an on-board crane or a crane barge, or carried by a hydraulic arm.

The remediation works will commence in the fourth quarter of 2015 and take approximately 12 months to complete. The works are to be undertaken in the following stages:

ESTIMATED PROJECT WORKS TIMELINE

Site Establishment 3 MONTHS

Remediation Works 6 MONTHS

Site De-mobilisation 3 MONTHS

Total Project Time 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS (incl Contingency)

Contingency

The remediation works are anticipated to occur between the hours of 7am and 5pm Monday to Friday, and between 7am and 2pm on Saturdays. No works The remediation works are are proposed for Public Holidays or Sundays and no deliveries are permitted outside of these hours. anticipated to occur between the Works undertaken outside these hours will only occur in hours of 7am and 5pm Monday to an emergency situation. Friday, and between 7am and 2pm on Saturdays. To understand the range of impacts which may result from this process, a number of technical assessments are being undertaken as part of the EIS.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 9 of 23

Air Quality (odour and dust) Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd The air quality assessment tested the potential impact on air quality from activity undertaken during the remediation works. The investigation considered the potential for odour impacts from the exposure of contaminated sediments during remediation processes.

Methodology The modelling study considered four odour emission scenarios and one dust emission scenario.

Mechanical Stage 1 Baseline studies Mechanical Mechanical extraction from extraction from extraction from Hydraulic the mangroves the Area A, Area B, transfer ÑÑ Odour sampling within the Remediation Areas was undertaken in 2014 in extraction in in Area A, transfer to barge to barge and addition to a review of sediment contamination surveys Odour Area A and transfer to barge and unloading unloading of emission transfer to 140 and unloading of material at material at ÑÑ Air quality modelling, using EPA data from the air quality monitor at scenarios Tennyson Road of material the wharf and the wharf and Rozelle, predicted the impacts that may be observed as a result of the via a floating at the wharf treatment at treatment at proposed works pipeline and treatment 140 Tennyson 140 Tennyson at 140 Road Road ÑÑ Review of existing meteorological conditions to be included in the air Tennyson Road quality modelling software Odour To achieve compliance with regulations, daily excavation should be less emission than 4m by 10m in the exposed shoreline areas, with a waterproof cover Stage 2 Impact assessment assumptions applied daily to prevent odorous emissions from a single day’s dredging

ÑÑ Meteorological, dust and odour dispersion models were developed to assess impact on the surrounding sensitive receptors under each scenario Dust emission Material handling of remediated material and clean fill at 140 scenario Tennyson Road ÑÑ Odour and dust levels were compared against the relevant assessment criteria at the sensitive receptor locations During the unloading of sand/fill material implementing controls such as Dust emission water spraying during unloading events and on sand stockpiles will reduce assumptions Stage 3 Mitigations dust generation to an acceptable level

ÑÑ Mitigation measures recommended to manage odour and dust at Additional modelling is being undertaken to further evaluate scenarios which potentially affected locations may be implemented as part of the sediment extraction process. Preliminary findings and mitigations

Sampling and modelling locations used are shown in Figure 1 below. Impact Mitigation

Figure 1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT SAMPLING AND MODELLING LOCATIONS All predicted odour concentrations Daily excavation should be less than were below the assessment criteria 4m by 10m in the exposed shoreline There is unlikely to be an odour impact areas, with a waterproof cover applied to the surrounding land use from the daily excavation of sediment if mitigations are employed

Potential odour concentrations Covered skip bin during marine based above the assessment criteria were transport identified during transport of materials Odour control tent and pressurised to the staging site and during the industrial building remediation, storage and disposal of Odour suppressant foam excavated material

Concentrations of dust are likely to be Levels of dust dispersion can be below the threshold of the assessment controlled to within acceptable levels criteria if mitigation employed through use of water sprays when sand is delivered

Recommendations The assessment recommended that all mitigation measures are adopted and regular water spraying of sand should form part of the management plan for the project.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 10 of 23

Traffic Prepared by GTA Consultants Pty Ltd A cumulative traffic impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on the local traffic network.

Methodology Figure 1 DEVELOPMENT SITES INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY The assessment methodology Assessment criteria and assumptions considered the: used in the assessment included:

ÑÑ Existing traffic and parking ÑÑ Baseline traffic movement counts conditions surrounding the site in Hilly Street and Tennyson Road conducted between 15 November ÑÑ Peak number (hourly and daily) and 21 November 2013 and tonnage/ size of vehicles accessing the site ÑÑ Developments either currently under construction, approved or ÑÑ Duration and staging of the works pending approval were included in and hours/ days/ times that the the study (See Figure 1). works would take place

ÑÑ Suitability of the proposed access arrangements for the site

ÑÑ Transport impact of the remediation works on the surrounding road network.

Existing traffic activity Preliminary findings

ÑÑ The site currently provides 10 off-street, parallel parking spaces along Table 1 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS GENERATED DURING THE Palace Lane REMEDIATION WORKS

ÑÑ Boat access to the site is via the private concrete wharf in Fairmile Cove Average Additional No. of Heavy Vehicle located on the north-eastern side of the site Stage Duration Heavy Vehicle Movements per Day Movements per Day1 ÑÑ The average vehicle movements per day on Hilly Street (1,183), Tennyson Road (1,257) and in and out of the subject site (28) was recorded to 1 movement per Site establishment ~3 months 11 establish the existing volume of traffic for the assessment. hour

2 movements per Figure 2 STAGING SITE AND LOCAL ROADS Remediation ~6 months 22 hour

1 movement per Site De-mobilisation ~3 months 11 hour

1Assuming a typical weekday working day of 7am - 5pm

3 Site Establishment MONTHS

Remediation Works 6 MONTHS

3 Site De-mobilisation MONTHS

Total Project Time 12 MONTHS 6 MONTHS (incl Contingency)

Contingency

VPD = VEHICLES MOVEMENTS PER DAY

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 11 of 23

Trafficcontinued...

Table 2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The preliminary findings of the cumulative traffic impact assessment indicate that:

Anticipated ÑÑ Estimated traffic resulting from the combined ÑÑ Traffic generation estimates based on the proposed Proportion of Additional Location Additional Traffic developments as indicated in Figure 1 above, are remediation works indicate the staging site will Daily Traffic Generation anticipated to generate additional peak hour (200 generate up to 22 heavy vehicle movements Generation movements/day) and daily movements (2,000 per day. This represents about 1% of the overall movements/day) within the precinct additional traffic loads in the surrounding area Up to 22 Staging Site 1% relative to the additional traffic to be generated by movements/day ÑÑ The anticipated level of light vehicle traffic the developments within the Mortlake and Majors generation is consistent with the sites previous use Bay area (which has 30 movements per day) based on 10 Surrounding 2,014 99% Developments movements/day employees working at the former marina at 140 ÑÑ In the context of the existing and anticipated Tennyson Road, Mortlake future traffic volumes surrounding the staging site, additional traffic generated by staging site activity ÑÑ An identified preferred heavy vehicle route is along is not expected to compromise the safety, function Tennyson Road, Mortlake Street and Broughton or operational performance of the surrounding Street to Parramatta Road/M4 Motorway, to road network. minimise the impact on surrounding residents

Figure 3 PROPOSED HEAVY VEHICLE ROUTE

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 12 of 23

Acoustic analysis Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd The acoustic impact analysis assessed the potential impact from the remediation works at Areas A and B, at the staging site and also road traffic noise.

SCALE OF ACCEPTABLE DECIBEL (dB) NOISE LEVELS Figure 1 ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA

20 to 30 dB Quiet room in a house

Day time in a quiet 35 to 45 dB residential street

50 to 60 dB Large busy office

70 dB Lawn mower 15 metres away

National standard for noise in an 85 db occupational environment

140 dB National standard for peak noise

Methodology Stage 1 Baseline studies and data

ÑÑ Establish baseline noise levels at a number of sensitive receptor locations in the remediation Noise generating activity Preliminary findings areas and staging site Noise generating equipment and activity included: Vibration and temporary road traffic impacts are ÑÑ A detailed and accurate representation of negligible, and unlikely to impact surrounding areas. ÑÑ Excavators, mobile cranes, hand tools, work boats, the site and surrounding area including the The assessment concluded that construction and mobile barges and fixed hopper barges existing building structure at the staging site remediation noise impacts are likely to occur unless and concrete/brick walls that surround the ÑÑ Insertion and removal of timber piles to construct appropriate mitigation actions are taken. staging site area on the northern and eastern silt curtain boundaries. ÑÑ Hydraulic dredger and booster pump ÑÑ Noise emission levels representative of the ÑÑ Dewatering equipment at the staging site including plant and equipment to be used for the project a vibrating screen, de-silter, decanter, centrifuge ÑÑ Noise propagation in the project area, unit, diesel generator, dozers, a pug-mill and water providing overall noise levels for each treatment plant sensitive receptor ÑÑ Light and heavy vehicle movements internal and external to the staging site. Stage 2 Impact assessment

ÑÑ A noise model was generated covering Recommendations/ Proposed Mitigation Measures all Project phases (site establishment, Alternatives to diesel Implementation of best remediation works and site de-mobilisation). Line on-site waste disposal and petrol engines and Establish a noise practice noise control chutes and bins with pneumatic units, such management and a noise ÑÑ Predicted noise levels were compared against measures (including damping material as hydraulic or electric- monitoring program WTP design) the noise assessment criteria at the sensitive controlled units receptor locations Locate small equipment in Ongoing community liaison Effective mufflers, Construct noise walls which sound-proofed enclosures and a contact point where Stage 3 Mitigation measures enclosures and low-noise extend to the ground, have residents can seek advice tool bits and blades for no gaps, cracks or any Reduce throttle settings and and guidance on potential ÑÑ Appropriate mitigation/ management machinery penetrations turn off all equipment and noise impacts associated measures were devised to manage noise at plant not being used with the project potentially affected locations

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 13 of 23

Social impact assessment Prepared by Urbis Pty Ltd A social impact assessment (SIA) was prepared to consider issues that impact people (directly or indirectly) in the local community.

A social impact assessment (SIA) was prepared as part of the EIS. A SIA Figure 1 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA is a technical study that considers the issues that affect people, directly or indirectly, and identifies a social impact as a change to one or more of the following:

ÑÑ Community

ÑÑ Personal and property rights

ÑÑ Fears and aspirations

ÑÑ Health and wellbeing

ÑÑ Culture

ÑÑ People’s way of life

ÑÑ Political systems

ÑÑ Environment. Methodology The SIA methodology included:

ÑÑ A site visit to the remediation areas, the staging site and surrounding areas

ÑÑ Review of technical documents

ÑÑ Review and assessment of the potential impact and benefits of the remediation activities on the physical, natural, cultural, social and socio- economic environment

ÑÑ Definition of two catchment areas (See Figure 1)

ÑÑ Demographic analysis

ÑÑ Review of community and stakeholder engagement findings

ÑÑ Social impact assessment and recommended mitigation measures. Assessment Criteria Preliminary findings Criteria Significance The social benefits, impacts and potential mitigation measures identified in this SIA included: ÑÑ Duration – whether positive benefits ÑÑ Minimal – Something that, after or negative impacts will be short term, assessment, was found not to result medium-term or long-term in a significant impact to potential ÑÑ Extent – whether positive benefits receptors BENEFITS IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES or negative impacts will impact ÑÑ Minor – An impact does not require many people or relatively few (i.e. special conditions to be attached to only a small number of individuals or the consent and can be controlled Improved amenity Short term disturbance Prepare management plans for households) by adoption of normal good practice of Kendall Bay for and inconvenience to noise, vibration and management ÑÑ Sensitivity/ Ability to Adapt – the and monitoring to ensure mitigation is recreation activities and local residents and users of working hours extent to which resources or receptors working properly and impact remains remove contaminated of the area through noise, Prepare a community are able to adapt to the change and minor sediments, which are dust, and visual impacts engagement strategy to maintain pre-impact livelihood assets ÑÑ Moderate – An effect that should be potentially harmful to Conflict between other inform residents of project ÑÑ Outcome – the consequence of the considered by decision-makers and is human health and the traffic generating sources, activity, continued dialogue impact in terms of scope and scale of likely to require conditions to ensure environment and safety associated and feedback throughout the primary and secondary impacts mitigation measures are recommended Long term social, with heavy vehicle use process, provide a community ÑÑ Major – An effect that should be human health and close to staging site contact number to register any considered in detail with conditions concerns or complaints, and environmental benefit Potential for minor attached and impacts compensated for advise on ongoing mitigation and for the local and wider uncontrolled release of where possible management responses community and all contaminants into the ÑÑ Critical – These effects are users of Kendall Bay “unacceptable” and should be avoided Parramatta River Prepare a construction traffic and Parramatta River management plan and traffic Possible remo val of control plan the existing mangroves as part of the remediation process

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 14 of 23

Preliminary hazard analysis A review workshop with project representatives from Jemena and ERM was undertaken to identify potential hazards and categories of risk in relation to the activities associated with the remediation process.

Methodology Preliminary findings

The aim of the preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) was to understand the hazards ÑÑ The remediation project can be undertaken within the legislative and risks associated with the proposed operations and facility. This included: requirements of an EPL and is unlikely to be considered an offensive development ÑÑ Identification of the nature and scale of all hazards for the project (including during the activity and after hours) ÑÑ The preliminary review of the dangerous goods anticipated to be stored and used were not potentially hazardous ÑÑ The selection of representative incident scenarios (experience based) ÑÑ The handling and processing of contaminated sediments from Kendall Bay ÑÑ Description of the key control measures/safeguards is likely to be considered a potential hazard, due to the inherent human ÑÑ Analysis of the consequences of these incidents on people, property and the health risks associated with exposure to contaminated sediments during the biophysical environment remediation process

ÑÑ Evaluation of the likelihood of such events occurring ÑÑ A conservative approach to remediation is required as requested for in the Environmental Assessment Requirements (EARs) for the EIS ÑÑ Calculation of the resulting risk levels of the facility using the companies risk matrix and comparison of these risk levels with established risk criteria ÑÑ Vehicle accidents involving the public and personnel at the different project areas must be given high priority and appropriate actions to reduce the risk ÑÑ Identification of opportunities for risk reduction. level are required The PHA was guided by the following legislation: ÑÑ Odour and fumes generated from plant machinery, barges and vehicles ÑÑ NSW Planning State Environmental Planning Policy 33 (SEPP 33) Hazardous should be closely monitored during the remediation works to ensure they do and Offensive Development requirements not pose a hazard to employees

ÑÑ Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Papers (HIPAPs) No.3 – Environmental ÑÑ Risks and control measures are required to ensure potential hazards are Risk and Impact Assessment Guidelines mitigated

ÑÑ Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 – List of activities required ÑÑ Mitigation measures identified during the EIS process should be adopted as for an environmental protection licence (EPL). controls to minimise risk.

Picture 1 KENDALL BAY

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 15 of 23

Landscape and visual impact Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd The landscape and visual impact assessment considered the potential impacts from the activities associated with works at Remediation Areas A and B and the staging site.

Methodology Figure 1 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS The methodology developed to assess landscape and visual impacts included:

ÑÑ A description of the key visual components of the proposed project activities within Kendall Bay and the staging site

ÑÑ An assessment of the potential visual impact from publicly accessible viewpoints, using photographs and photomontages to identify the impact proposed activities would have on each view (See Figure 1). The criteria used to assess the visual impact of the project include:

ÑÑ The distance of the viewer from the project area

ÑÑ The nature of the surrounding landscape

ÑÑ The number of viewers able to see the project area.

Activities likely to cause Preliminary findings landscape and visual impact Overall, the visual impact assessment determined there Key activities of the remediation works likely to cause will be minimal visual impact from the remediation works. impact include: Impacts identified included: ÑÑ Ground level and boardwalk views will be screened by ÑÑ Delivery of temporary plant and equipment to Kendall Bay, Breakfast Point, Mortlake, and along the temporary fencing Parramatta River ÑÑ Views to the works area may be obtained from existing residential buildings. ÑÑ Construction of temporary security fencing, silt curtains and a pipeline, for transporting dredged material. Views from both land-based and water based vantage points will be impacted from a limited number of locations where views to the water are screened. Elsewhere the visual impact will be minimal. On completion of remediation works all temporary works equipment will be removed and the site rehabilitated. There may be a noticeable change if the mangroves are removed. In the short term the residual landscape will be one that is visually similar to the recently constructed open space areas at Waterfront Park and Breakfast Point. Potential removal of the mangroves will permit views from the existing boardwalk at the southern end of Kendall Bay to the Parramatta River. These views are currently restricted. If removed, mangroves will be re-established reducing further any notable change to the landscape.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 16 of 23

Hydrology assessment Prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV The hydrology assessment considered the impact of the remediation activities on sediment and water levels in Kendall Bay.

Methodology Preliminary findings The Hydrology assessment reviewed three specific issues. These included: ÑÑ Piling installed for silt curtain enclosures may disrupt the seabed ÑÑ Erosion and sediment controls during excavation and backfilling of the bay Bathymetry and Shoreline Morphology ÑÑ Water depth at the wharf facilities adjacent to the proposed ÑÑ Management procedures for any barging of contaminated material staging site can accommodate construction vessels provided they have a hull depth of less than around 2m ÑÑ Stormwater management. ÑÑ Structures at most risk from wave action include piling for The key areas for assessment include: installation of silt curtains and the restraint for the floating dredge pipeline ÑÑ Remediation areas (Areas A and B) Wave climate ÑÑ The material selected for the geo-engineered cap will be tested ÑÑ The pipe and barge transport area within the Parramatta River to ensure the backfill will not be disrupted in the local wind wave and boat wakes ÑÑ Proposed staging site (140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake). ÑÑ The primary and secondary silt curtains may become partially buried by near-shore sediment movements at low tide. This can be mitigated by fixing the curtains to a series of piles leading out from the foreshore to deeper water Figure 1 HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA ÑÑ The anchoring system used to restrain the floating dredge Water level pipeline should accommodate tidal variation in water level ÑÑ Particular activities should be scheduled at high tides (e.g. silt curtain pile installation) to accommodate tidal movements ÑÑ The construction activities will not have any measurable impact on local water level variations ÑÑ The seabed will be restored to its pre-remediation bathymetry

ÑÑ Disturbance of bed sediments outside of the remediation areas will occur during the construction period ÑÑ It is recommended to use winches and cables wherever possible within the shallow waters of Kendall Bay in preference to the Currents use of engine propulsion to limit increased boating traffic ÑÑ Cap material applied near stormwater outlets should be strengthened to accommodate increased currents ÑÑ The proposed works would not have any long term impact on currents within the Kendall Bay

ÑÑ Dredging within the remediation areas will move sediments into suspension within the water column ÑÑ The bed slope adjustment would be minimised by the selection of clean cap material that is compatible with the existing beach sand

Sediment transport ÑÑ The imported sand/gravel is expected to be more stable than The seabed levels in Area A and Area B will be temporarily modified as part the pre-existing muddy bed sediments, particularly in the of the dredging or excavation of contaminated material and returned to pre- deeper water offshore remediation bed levels by the placement of a geo-engineered cap. ÑÑ It is expected that sediments brought down the Parramatta River during freshes/floods, would form a thin veneer above To test the potential impact of the dredging and excavation the the capping material in the long term and further secure the methodology included: capped areas

ÑÑ A survey of bed levels within tolerances agreed with NSW Roads and Maritime Services

ÑÑ Testing the capacity of the geo-engineered cap, to effectively replace and contain sediment placed within and surrounding the Remediation Areas and in the vicinity of stormwater outlets

ÑÑ Monitoring of cap settlements over time to identify changes to the excavated areas.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 17 of 23

Marine ecology Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd The marine ecology assessment considered the impact of the remediation activities on marine ecology and ecosystems.

Methodology Preliminary findings The proposed works will occur within a remediation project area that includes: The desktop and field investigations identified no extensive or complex marine communities within the remediation areas, no critical marine habitats and no ÑÑ Two remediation areas endangered or threatened marine species known to utilise marine resources in ÑÑ A staging site area Kendall Bay.

ÑÑ A marine navigational corridor. The remediation project area exhibits four broad habitat types:

ÑÑ Mangroves including 220 individual trees

ÑÑ Sandy beach Figure 1 MARINE ECOLOGY ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA ÑÑ Rock platform

ÑÑ Rock wall. The species supported by the mangrove stand include oysters and conniwinks found on rubble and mangrove roots. Mangroves options

Option 1 Retain all or part of the mangrove stand - that is ‘do nothing’ or remove some of the stand

Option 2 Remove the sediment while maintaining the mangroves in situ

Option 3 Remove the mangroves and contaminated sediment from remediation Area A

Develop a mangrove management plan and prepare the area for: ÑÑ Biodiversity re-establishment Mitigations ÑÑ Management of progress of any re-colonisation Monitor progress such that adaptive measures can be employed if required

The works will involve: Impacts Mitigations ÑÑ Removal of sediments from Kendall Bay

ÑÑ Transporting and handling of removed sediment to the staging site ÑÑ Potential loss of marine habitat within ÑÑ Minimise the disturbance footprint remediation areas including mangroves specific to the mangrove stand ÑÑ Processing of sediments within an enclosed pressured area at the staging site ÑÑ Develop a mangrove management plan including potential re-establishment of ÑÑ A capping of excavated areas. mangroves The impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with NSW and Federal legislation and NSW Planning Instruments. ÑÑ Temporary changes in water quality and ÑÑ Water quality management plan during water movement (tidal) the life of the remediation project Investigations for the assessment included: ÑÑ Altered water quality as a result of ÑÑ Measures to stabilise and rehabilitate ÑÑ A review of available literature or other information pertaining to the site the re-suspension of sediments during following the disturbance and surrounds dredging

ÑÑ Site visits to identify the habitats represented and other biological attributes ÑÑ Disturbance related to underwater noise ÑÑ Water quality and marine habitat and risks associated with accidental management and monitoring plan ÑÑ An assessment of potential impacts of the project on ecology spills of substances during and following the remediation and ecosystems. project

ÑÑ Removal of contaminated sediments and ÑÑ None identified improved seabed and marine ecology

The results of the marine ecology assessment indicate there is unlikely to be significant impacts to the marine ecology in the remediation project area provided the management measures recommended are implemented.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 18 of 23

Marine navigational assessment Prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV The assessment considered the impact of the remediation works on existing marine navigational activities on the part of the Parramatta River adjacent to the staging site.

Methodology Figure 1 MARINE NAVIGATION ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA Water based activities that are proposed to be undertaken include:

ÑÑ Site establishment/disestablishment

ÑÑ Sediment removal and capping construction. These activities are temporary for the duration of the works. Water based activities will take place in the following areas:

ÑÑ Immediately around the proposed staging site and wharf structures

ÑÑ Around 10m to 20m seaward of the seawall alignment between the proposed staging site and Area A to accommodate the pipeline and associated silt curtains

ÑÑ Remediation Areas A and B, and approximately 10m to 20m surrounding for associated silt curtains

ÑÑ The proposed project navigation route between the proposed staging site and Kendall Bay.

The vessels associated with the remediation ÑÑ Dredger ÑÑ Workboats project that could potentially affect existing ÑÑ Barges (material transport) ÑÑ Survey boat navigation include: ÑÑ Barge-mounted plant (e.g. pile rig/crane/excavator) ÑÑ Water quality monitoring boat.

Existing navigation Preliminary findings

An audit of the pattern of existing navigation found that: ÑÑ Waterway navigation impacts boat ramp, located less than due to the Kendall Bay Sediment 200m away, adjacent to Cabarita ÑÑ Vessels travelling within 100m of ÑÑ Located within the western portion Remediation Project would Ferry Wharf would be available the Mortlake Ferry in Kendall Bay of Fairmile Cove is the Mortlake be limited to the duration of for launching and Fairmile Cove are limited to a Ferry landing (vehicular ferry), an the project speed of 4 knots RMS Slipway to service vehicular ÑÑ The resident kayaker’s typical ferries, and the staging site ÑÑ Existing structures such as seawalls navigation route would not be ÑÑ The primary navigation route in the would be unaffected with the greatly affected area is the main channel located ÑÑ There are 20 commercial swing exception of the staging site to the north of Kendall Bay and moorings and a wreck, the Lady ÑÑ The pipeline route including the Fairmile Cove Edeline, within Fairmile Cove ÑÑ The position of the existing swing silt curtain enclosure would not be moorings within Fairmile Cove may accessed by watercraft ÑÑ Located at the point on the eastern ÑÑ The existing vessel and small be temporarily relocated but could side of Kendall Bay is a single lane craft use within Fairmile Cove and ÑÑ The proposed project navigation remain within their designated public boat ramp and a floating Kendall Bay areas includes public route through Kendall Bay is at a lease area pontoon ferry wharf (Cabarita passenger ferries, the Mortlake distance from the existing ferry Ferry Wharf) ferry, rowing boats, dragon boats, ÑÑ A resident kayaker who uses route to Cabarita Ferry Wharf such sail boats, kayakers, recreational Kendall Bay would not be able that interaction of construction power boats, and swing moorings. to launch at the beach area due traffic with ferries is unlikely to to the construction. A public occur within Kendall Bay.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 19 of 23

Soil and water quality Prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV The soil and water quality assessment addressed potential impacts relating to soil and water including control of sediment and erosion, and water quality and management.

Methodology Figure 1 SOIL AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA The key areas for assessment (shown in Figure 1) include:

ÑÑ Remediation areas (Areas A and B)

ÑÑ Declared area within the Parramatta River

ÑÑ Proposed staging site (former marina at 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake). The assessment considered:

ÑÑ Erosion and sediment controls during excavation and backfilling of the bay

ÑÑ Details of a water quality monitoring program for Kendall Bay, with a focus on turbidity and key contaminants

ÑÑ Management procedures for any barging of contaminated material

ÑÑ Stormwater management

ÑÑ Management of wastewater generated during the dewatering of extracted sediments. A series of soil and water sampling and monitoring programs were undertaken to establish a baseline for the assessments.

BASELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING Preliminary findings

Stage 2 – November 2013 to February Erosion and sediment controls Stage 1 – August to October 2012 2014 Potential impacts relate to: Eight (8) sampling events Twelve (12) sampling events ÑÑ Disturbance of contaminated bed sediments

Samples taken at five monitoring locations from just below the water surface and at a ÑÑ Presence of potential acid sulphate soils (PASS) depth 0.5 m above the bed. Samples were analysed for: ÑÑ Removal of sediments adjacent to existing seawall structures and their stability ÑÑ TSS (total suspended solids) ÑÑ Total Cyanide ÑÑ Transport of contaminated sediments from Kendall Bay to the proposed ÑÑ Dissolved Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, ÑÑ TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons) Hg, Ni, Zn) (C6-C36) staging site

ÑÑ BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, ÑÑ PAHs (poly-aromatic hydrocarbons). ÑÑ Management of stormwater at the proposed staging site and xylenes) ÑÑ On-site storage and containment of sediments at the proposed staging site The assessment considers the appropriate level of monitoring and evaluation for ÑÑ Stability of the capping layer potential contamination of soil and water from the remediation approach. ÑÑ Longer term performance of the capping layer.

Picture 1 FORESHORE AREA, KENDALL BAY

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 20 of 23

Soil and water quality continued...

Stormwater management ÑÑ Maintenance of the existing water ÑÑ Retaining the existing system of surface drainage system to capture rainwater inlet pits to capture untreated water REMEDIATION AREA A AND AREA B runoff from the roof of the warehouse runoff and direct it into a central There will be no management required other than ensuring that stormwater building storage pit outlets are not blocked by construction plant, equipment and materials. ÑÑ Construction of a concrete kerb around ÑÑ Blockage of the overflow within the the perimeter of the area to capture central storage pit to prevent the STAGING SITE untreated water from the heavy vehicle discharge of untreated water into the Surface runoff at the proposed staging site will contain sediments derived from loading/unloading area Parramatta River material handling activities. Recommendations to eliminate contamination include: ÑÑ Pump out of untreated water ÑÑ Capture and pump out of untreated captured within the central storage water from the heavy vehicle pit for processing at the on-site water weighbridge and wash down area for treatment plant processing through the water treatment plant ÑÑ Capture of stormwater runoff generated from roofs with gutters and downpipes

Water quality management

BASELINE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FOR ALGAL BLOOMS

ÑÑ Results for chemical contaminants/toxicants were generally very low throughout Kendall Bay and surrounding areas are unlikely to be affected by algal blooms as a the entire baseline monitoring period, and existing water quality conditions in result of the remediation works. The assessment found that: Kendall Bay and Fairmile Cove are benign ÑÑ Dissolved oxygen levels in the PA are generally within the default ANZECC ÑÑ Water quality conditions in Kendall Bay and Fairmile Cove during the trigger limits of 80 to 110%, which indicates that low oxygen levels do not entire baseline monitoring period (i.e. Stages 1 and 2) were indicative of a affect the marine environment in the project area typical estuary. ÑÑ Low oxygen, high nutrient concentration and poor flushing have contributed to BASELINE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT the outbreak of algal blooms in other parts of the Parramatta River Water quality trigger values would be adopted to assess water quality conditions ÑÑ Well flushed sections of the Parramatta River, such as Kendall Bay and for the remediation project. surrounding areas, are not likely to be affected by algal blooms.

Measurements taken at near-field monitoring locations would be compared WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM with these trigger values to assess compliance of the project with water The proposed water quality monitoring program comprises two main elements: quality objectives. ÑÑ Water Treatment Plant Monitoring – Monitor treated water from the sediment WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES dewatering process, to ensure discharge criteria are being met

The return water discharge location should be positioned at the offshore end of ÑÑ Parramatta River Monitoring – Monitor waters in the immediate vicinity of the existing wharf, with the discharge pipeline extending beneath the entire length Area A, Area B and the discharge point from the water treatment plant to of the suspended concrete deck. Return water discharges should be submerged detect any impact on ambient water quality due to project activities. under all tidal conditions. It is likely that the discharge outlet water temperature will reach the temperature of the receiving waters within several metres of the initial mixing zone.

Recommendations/Proposed Mitigation Measures Management measures to minimise potential impacts related to soil and water include:

ÑÑ Implementation of erosion and sediment controls

ÑÑ Stormwater management measures and water quality management measures (including a water quality monitoring program) within Kendall Bay and at the proposed staging site.

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 21 of 23

Waste management Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd A waste management plan was prepared to identify specific classifications of waste and how this would be treated as part of the remediation process.

Methodology Key Preliminary findings The methodology included: The proposed storage, transport and disposal of all waste generated as part of the remediation process is summarised in Table 1 ÑÑ Identification and description of waste categories Table 1 SUMMARY OF HOW WASTE GENERATED WILL BE DISPOSED OF DURING THE REMEDIATION WORKS

ÑÑ Classification of different types of waste and storage options at the staging site Waste type Storage Transport Disposal

ÑÑ Transport options and disposal of all categories Stabilised sediment will be of waste. stockpiled at the staging site to await disposal Stabilised sediment Trucks to transport to landfill At a licensed landfill facility Identification and These will be stockpiled in classification of waste bunded bays undercover within the tent structure Waste types identified as part of the waste All waste to be stored in management plan included: sealed bins By an approved and licensed At an approved licensed ÑÑ Stabilised sediment – material dredged from General and household Waste should be separated the remediation areas and piped to the staging accordingly to maximise contractor facility site for stabilisation, storage and disposal recycling of paper, cardboard, glass, aluminium etc ÑÑ General waste – general waste including glass, At an approved and licensed plastic, paper, aluminium cans and cardboard Stockpiled and stored within facility where all efforts By an approved and licensed Building and construction the fenced boundary of the to recycle metal, brick ÑÑ Household waste – waste generated from the contractor staging site material and timber will be workforce undertaken

ÑÑ Building and construction waste – materials At an approved and licensed Stockpiled and dampened used in the construction process including By an approved and licensed facility Material to be ordered Fill material or covered to avoid dust timber, steel, concrete, aluminium and PVC contractor on an as needed basis to emissions reduce excess ÑÑ Clean fill material– residual capping and sand Stockpiled within the staging By an approved and licensed At an approved licensed fill material Green waste site prior to disposal contractor facility ÑÑ Green waste from removal of areas of By an approved and licensed flora during the site establishment and dis- In steel drums prior to At an approved licensed Waste oil contractor supported with establishment disposal facility tracking information ÑÑ Waste oil from plant equipment. Waste spent activated carbon to be stored in sealed drums/ By an approved and licensed At an approved licensed Granular activated carbon containers to prevent release contractor facility into the atmosphere

At the water treatment plant Treated water Via pipeline Sydney Harbour prior to disposal

Picture 1 RIVER QUAYS MARINA, KENDALL BAY

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 22 of 23

Aboriginal and European heritage Prepared by ERM Pty Ltd The Statement of Heritage Impact (SOHI) considered the potential for the remediation works to impact existing heritage items within the navigational corridor and Cabarita Park.

Methodology Recommendations The methodology for the SOHI included: The SOHI recommended a set of measures to further minimise impacts: ÑÑ A review of background documentation relevant to the remediation project area ÑÑ Implement a reporting procedure which would require work to be stopped, in the unlikely ÑÑ A site visit event of damage to the identified heritage ÑÑ A review of legislative and regulatory frameworks items

ÑÑ An impact assessment. ÑÑ Survey the wreck of the ‘Lady Edeline’ to identify dislodged pieces of the ‘Lady Edeline’ Preliminary findings that may have drifted within the pipeline route

The SOHI found that the proposed remediation project is unlikely to have a ÑÑ Establish a 5m buffer area using buoys placed significant impact on the identified heritage values of the Mortlake Punt, the around the exposed remains of the Lady remains of the ‘Lady Edeline’ or Cabarita Park. Edeline to prevent inadvertent impacts

Historical ground disturbance activities indicate a low potential for the presence ÑÑ Work should stop in any location where a of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the remediation project area. Areas suspected Aboriginal object is found and NSW assessed included: Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) notified immediately. ÑÑ The shoreline areas

ÑÑ Locations adjacent to the remediation project area. As a result, the proposed remediation project is unlikely to have a significant impact on potential Aboriginal heritage values. The floating pipeline will not materially affect the remains of the ‘Lady Edeline’. A survey of the ‘Lady Edeline’ prior to the proposed works will substantially reduce the impact of the works on the historic fabric of the wreck and negate any adverse impact.

Picture 1 ‘LADY EDELINE’, HALF-SUBMERGED IN KENDALL BAY (1987) Picture 2 LOCATION OF ‘LADY EDELINE WRECK IN KENDALL BAY

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

July 2014 | Board 23 of 23

Next steps Subject to planning approvals, Jemena anticipates that remediation works will commence in mid-late 2015, followed by decommissioning and rehabilitation of any areas affected by the works.

KEY PROJECT MILESTONE STATUS / APPROXIMATE TIMEFRAME

Submit the state significant development (SSD) application to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment once the revised Environmental Jemena will Assessment Requirements (EARs) are received. The provide updates process includes: and information • Issue of revised Environmental Assessment Requirements (EARs) as this process Mid 2014 • Prepare key technical studies to inform the EIS continues. process • Finalise preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Subject to the revised EARs, technical studies will be finalised and the EIS lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment.

Submission and public exhibition of SSD application Thank You Mid – late 2014 and EIS. Thank you for your ongoing interest and participation. Your feedback is important to help inform planning and assessment. SSD application for remediation works subject Please complete a feedback form and post Early 2015 to decision. it in the Feedback Box today, or return it in a Reply Paid envelope.

For more information or to lodge questions Mid – late 2015 Remediation works or feedback:

Visit the project website: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au Look out for the next community newsletter

Call us on 1800 266 901 Stay tuned for updates in the Inner West Courier and the Burwood Scene Email us at [email protected]

www.kendallbayremediation.com.au | [email protected] | 1800 266 901

Appendix C Recent Newsletters – May and July

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

Newsletter Issue – May 2014 This newsletter provides an update on the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project (the Remediation Project). This is the eighth newsletter since Jemena commenced community consultation in late 2012. Background documents, community information, previous newsletters and feedback forms can be downloaded at the project website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. Project update Environmental Impact Statement The specialist consultancy firm Environmental Resource Management (ERM) is in the process of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of Jemena. The EIS examines potential impacts associated with the Remediation Project, and will include (but is not limited to) ecology, noise, odour, traffic and social aspects. The finalisation of the EIS can only occur once Jemena has received the specific requirements of the NSW Government’s Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). Also required is a final decision from the Minister of Planning with respect to whether the Remediation Project continues to be considered as being State Significant. A decision from Government is expected during June 2014. Community consultation Depending on when the DP&E requirements and decision relating to the State Significance of the project are received, Jemena envisages that it will be in a position to present the outcomes of the EIS to all interested stakeholders in late June/early July 2014. Notifications will be sent to all community members once a firm date can be identified. Jemena is committed to ongoing community consultation and has developed a program of consultation activities. This includes stakeholder briefings, newsletters, a project 1800 number and email address, open-house community information and feedback sessions, community meetings and a Community Liaison Group. Community Information and Feedback Session Thank you to all members of the community who attended the Community Information and Feedback Session on Tuesday 25 February 2014. A total of 58 people attended the event. The evening included an information display outlining the EIS process to date and next steps in the project, a chance to meet members of the project team, an opportunity to ask questions one on one and a formal presentation with a Q and A. Key issues included traffic generation, road impacts, potential negative impacts and disturbance of nearby neighbours regarding dust, odour and noise, and impacts on the mangroves in Kendall Bay. All questions have been integrated into the Issues and Response Log and uploaded to the project website.

Contact the Jemena consultation team on the details below: Email: [email protected] • phone: 1800 266 901 • web: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au

Other recent consultations In April, members of the consultation team conducted community surveys and face-to-face briefings with business owners and residents in Mortlake, Breakfast Point and Concord. The team will be on the ground again in June seeking further direct feedback. The team also met with the Majors Bay Chamber of Commerce to discuss the proposed process, and identify any key issues or concerns. In May, the team set up a community information stall on two Sundays at the Concord Farmers Market in Cintra Park. The stall displayed information boards from the recent Information and Feedback Session, circulated recent newsletters, and invited feedback through community surveys. In June, the team will be visiting the markets again to provide ongoing information and invite further feedback on the project. During the last three months, questions from the community have continued to be received through the project email and website, and all responses are recorded in an Issues and Response Log. The Log is updated on a weekly basis and is available to view on the website. The team has also extended an open invitation to meet with community groups, body corporates, local businesses and other interested stakeholders. To arrange a meeting, please contact us on 1800 266 901 or email [email protected]. For more information………….  Visit the project website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au  Call us on 1800 266 901  Email [email protected].

Contact the Jemena consultation team on the details below: Email: [email protected] • phone: 1800 266 901 • web: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project

Newsletter Issue – July 2014 This newsletter provides an update on the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project. This is the ninth newsletter since Jemena commenced community consultation in late 2012. Background documents, community information and updates can be accessed at the project website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. Project update Environmental Impact Statement Specialist consultancy firm Environmental Resource Management (ERM) are managing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process on behalf of Jemena. At this stage, Jemena are awaiting specific requirements from the NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment on areas to be examined under the EIS, before the EIS can be completed and lodged. A decision on the Department of Planning and Environment’s requirements, and the finalisation of the application to have the Remediation Project declared a State Significant Development, are expected during July 2014. While awaiting revised requirements from the Government, Jemena has engaged ERM to commence technical studies as part of the EIS. The studies assess the impact of the proposed remediation works at specific locations including the staging site (140 Tennyson Road), the Remediation Areas A and B, the dredge pipeline, the sedimentation barrier and the barging and pipeline corridor (See Figure 1) Preliminary findings from the technical studies have been developed. This includes studies regarding ecology, noise, odour and traffic. On receipt of the specific requirements from the NSW Government, the draft technical studies will be reviewed and updated. Figure 1 – Study area

Contact the Urbis consultation team on the details below: Email: [email protected] • phone: 1800 266 901 • web: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au

Open-house community information and feedback session and community meeting Jemena will present the preliminary findings of the technical studies to all interested stakeholders at an open-house community information feedback session and community meeting which will take place on Tuesday 29 July 2014. The session includes:

 a drop-in session between 4.30 – 7.30 pm (come at any time)

 followed by a formal presentation and Q&A session from 7.30 – 9 pm.

The venue is the Massey Park Golf Club, Ian Parade, Concord, NSW. The drop-in session is an opportunity for community members to view information on the technical studies, prepared as part of the EIS process, and discuss the preliminary findings with members of the project team. The formal presentation and Q&A session will commence at 7.30pm. For numbers, we ask community members interested in attending the formal presentation to please RSVP to the contact details below by Friday 25 July 2014. Ongoing community consultation Jemena is committed to ongoing community consultation and has developed a program of consultation activities. This includes stakeholder briefings, newsletters, a project 1800 number and email address (details below), open-house community information and feedback sessions, community meetings, pop-up community information stalls, and a Community Liaison Group. The consultation team extends an open invitation to meet with community groups, body corporates, local businesses and other interested stakeholders. To arrange a meeting, please contact us on 1800 266 901 or email [email protected]. For more information………….  Visit the project website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au  Call us on 1800 266 901  Email [email protected].

Contact the Urbis consultation team on the details below: Email: [email protected] • phone: 1800 266 901 • web: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au

Appendix D Presentation

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Information and Feedback Session 29 July 2014 Presentation overview

• Project update

• Technical assessments for the Environmental Impact Statement – preliminary findings

• Q and A

2 Project update

• Jemena Limited (Jemena) intends to secure development consent to remediate two defined areas within Kendall Bay bordering the former Mortlake Gasworks site

• The key objectives of the Project are as follows: – Jemena to fulfil their obligations under their VRA with the EPA – to alleviate the current risk to human health associated with the contaminated sediments within the remediation areas – to alleviate adverse ecological impacts caused from the contaminated sediments

3 Project update and timelines

• Currently awaiting outcome of Jemena’s State Significant Development application as well as updated Environmental Assessment Requirements (EARs)

• Subject to the above, it is planned to lodge the EIS during Sept 2014, to the Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E), for the test of adequacy

• The EIS will subsequently be placed on public exhibition – proposed 4th Quarter 2014

4 Project area

5 Impact assessment methodology

Source: ERM 2012 6 Technical studies for EIS

Acoustic impact Hydrology assessment assessment Air quality/odour Landscape & visual impact assessment assessment Ecological impact Social impact assessment assessment Environmental hazard Soil & water assessment assessment Health risk assessment Traffic impact assessment

Heritage impact assessment

7 Summary of noise assessment

Methodology 1. Baseline studies and data • Baseline noise monitoring (Sept 2012 and Nov/Dec 2013) to establish existing noise conditions at sensitive receptor locations • Noise source data collected for all project plant and equipment – noise modelling to assess impact of remediation works on background (existing) noise levels 2. Impact Assessment • Noise modelling across all project phases (site establishment, remediation and decommissioning) • Predicted noise levels compared against noise assessment criteria at sensitive receptor locations 3. Mitigation Measures • Appropriate mitigation/ management measures devised to manage impacts 8

Summary of noise assessment

Impact Mitigation Measures Significance of Impact with Mitigation

The proposed works will result •Implement best practice noise control in an increase in noise at measures sensitive receptor locations •Community Consultation adjacent to Kendall Bay (5 – 15 decibel increase) •Noise Management Plan Moderate Noise levels remain under the maximum guidelines allowed for construction (75 decibels) Traffic noise from heavy vehicle •Community Consultation movements will be up to 1 •Noise Management Plan decibel above existing Minor background noise levels •Limited construction Hours

9 Summary of air quality/odour assessment

Methodology 1. Baseline studies and data • Baseline odour monitoring (early 2014) at sensitive receptor locations • Baseline sampling from sediments collected from remediation areas • Review of existing meteorological conditions to inform air quality modelling 2. Impact Assessment • Odour and dust dispersion model predicts odour and dust levels at sensitive receptor locations • Odour and dust levels compared against EPA assessment criteria at the sensitive receptor locations 3. Mitigation Measures • Appropriate mitigation/ management measures devised to manage impacts

10

Summary of air quality/odour assessment

Impact Mitigation Measures Significance of Impact with Mitigation Odour concentrations below •Odour control tent and pressurised the assessment criteria* industrial building identified at sensitive •Cap excavated area during extraction of receptor locations sediment in the exposed shoreline area Minor No emissions which are •Covered skip bin during marine transport detrimental to human health will be released during the •Odour suppressant foam remediation works Dust concentrations below •Dust suppressant sprays the assessment criteria^ at •Covered skip bin during marine based sensitive receptor locations transport Minor

*Assessment criteria for odour is two units below the level set by the NSW EPA ^Assessment criteria for dust is two units below the level set by the NSW EPA 11

Summary of transportation assessment Methodology 1. Baseline studies and data • Traffic counts undertaken over a seven day period at three locations: − Staging site (28 vehicle movements/day) − Tennyson Road (1,257 vehicle movements/day) − Hilly Street (1,183 vehicle movements/day) • Review of all public transport and pedestrian access in the vicinity to the Project 2. Impact Assessment • Assessment of traffic impact on local roads - volumes, safety and efficiency • Assess intersection impacts and level of service post project • Identification of preferred and alternative haulage routes • Assessment of cumulative traffic impacts associated with traffic volumes for future developments in Breakfast Point 3. Mitigation measures • Devise appropriate mitigation/ management measures 12

Summary of transportation assessment

Additional traffic from remediation works

Stage Duration No. of Heavy Average Additional Vehicle Movements Heavy Vehicle per Day Movements per Day

Site establishment ~3 months 11 1 movement per hour

Remediation ~6 months 22 2 movements per hour

Site De-mobilisation ~3 months 11 1 movement per hour

13 Summary of transportation assessment

Cumulative Impacts

Location Anticipated Additional Proportion of Daily Traffic Additional Traffic Generation Generation

Staging Site Up to 22 heavy vehicle 1% movements/day

Surrounding Developments 2,014 vehicle 99% movements/day

• The assessment of the cumulative volume of traffic generated from both the Project and the new developments in Stage 2 of Breakfast Point indicates the Project will create approximately 1% of the additional traffic on the surrounding road network

14 Summary of transportation assessment

Impact Mitigation Measures Significance of Impact with Mitigation

Increase in heavy vehicle movements • Construction Transportation causing traffic, operational and/or Management Plan (CTMP) Negligible safety impacts • Traffic Control Plan (TCP)

10 car spaces onsite will reduce to 5 - • CTMP potential overflow in the vicinity of the • TCP Negligible staging site • Provision of additional on- site parking

Potential disruptions to local transport • No management/ mitigation options/ routes in the vicinity of the measures identified Negligible staging site and wider Project Area

Disruptions to marine recreational • Notice to Mariners use in Kendall Bay • Vessel speeds Negligible

15 Summary of ecological assessment

Methodology 1. Baseline studies and data • Review of literature including relevant database searches • Habitat assessment including two field surveys to identify threatened species, communities, benthic organisms, populations and their habitat 2. Impact Assessment • Assessment of Impacts on flora and fauna in accordance with NSW and Federal legislation and NSW Planning Instruments 3. Mitigation Measures • Appropriate mitigation/ management measures devised to manage potential impacts

16

Summary of ecological assessment

Options for mangrove stand in Remediation Area A Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Retain all or part of the Remove the sediment Remove the mangroves mangrove stand while maintaining the and contaminated mangroves in situ sediment from remediation Area A

Finding: Remediation cannot occur without removing/ damaging the existing mangrove colony. No practical solution is available to allow retention of mangroves and remediation of sediment on Area A. Option 3 is the only practical approach.

Mitigation measures: . Develop a mangrove management plan to prepare area for biodiversity re- establishment and management of progress of mangrove re-colonisation . Monitor progress to employ adaptive measures if necessary

17 Summary of ecological assessment

Impact Mitigation Measures Significance of Impact with Mitigation

Impacts on threatened or protected fauna • Marine habitat monitoring species from loss of preferred habitat plan Negligible Physical loss of mangroves habitat • Mangrove management plan •Re-establishment of Negligible mangroves Altered water quality as a result of the re- • Water quality management suspension of sediments during dredging plan Negligible

Water quality impacts from accidental • Use of silt curtains. hydrocarbon spills from plant, equipment or • Visual inspection of pipeline Negligible pipeline failure Impacts to the seabed and marine ecology •None identified during removal of contaminated sediments Positive

18

Q and A Session

19 Thank you and close

Next Steps

• Display and presentation materials from the session will be uploaded to the website for broader interest

• Await outcome of Jemena’s State Significant Development application as well as updated Environmental Assessment Requirements (EARs) (expected Q3 2014)

• Subject to the above, EIS to be lodged Q3 2014

• Public Exhibition Q4 2014/ Q1 2015

20

Appendix E Feedback from the public meeting

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

PROJECT UPDATE . Do the suggested work hours apply 7 days a week?

A: 6 days a week. The studies considered Mon – Fri hours and separate hours on the Saturday. These are all worse case scenarios out of which Jemena will not stray.

. Please clarify the Saturday work hours. Are they 8am - 1pm or 7am - 2pm?

A: 7am – 2pm are work hours used for the modelling, 8am – 1pm are Council permitted noise hours. We will uphold Council’s noise restriction hours of 8-1.

. What will happen if asbestos is found?

A: We have conducted an asbestos survey. There is a small amount of asbestos in the building at the Tennyson Road site. It will remain there. There will be no demolition which will change the state of asbestos.

TIMELINES -

PROJECT AREA . Why is the location of the Tennyson Road site (narrow streets etc.) considered suitable compared to alternate sites?

A: There is a preference is to treat contamination close to the area, and this site allows that. From an environmental footprint perspective of transporting slurry across the bay, we are reluctant to expand the footprint to different areas. There was the additional issue of finding a site that meets engineering criteria.

We searched the Bay for 3 years (in open consultation with stakeholders including the RMS and property owners) and conducted an extensive survey. None of the sites met the criteria of availability (e.g. access routes, public access etc.) and engineering issues.

The Tennyson Road site is suitable because there is existing infrastructure on the site and proximity to the remediation area (which opens the opportunity for a pipe for suction dredging). This site is available and fairly accessible based on traffic studies.

. What will the remediation area look like when it is finished, including in terms of depth of the bay, reinstatement of sand etc.?

A: Areas will be cut and covered in 10 x 4 m grid areas and the plan is to then bring in material to fill in the area back to the pre-existing sea bed level. This material will be predominately a sand mixture.

. What will that sandy and muddy area be like post-remediation?

A: There are requirements to return the area to its previous functioning level and the depth will need to stay the same. We will consult with engineers and ecologists to make a material mix that will replicate current ecological processes and encourage organisms to repopulate.

On a previous project in Homebush Bay, they considered what habitat would be most conducive to re-establish the bed and re-establish the mangroves. Jemena will also take these issues into consideration, in discussion with stakeholders

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

including the EPA and NSW government Fisheries staff.

IMPACT . This question concerns the issue of alternative options considered as part of the ASSESSMENT impact assessment methodology. What is the alternative of barging out materials METHODOLOGY as opposed transporting material by truck and has there been a detailed technical study on this?

A: We have looked at alternatives to barging and that study is on the website. The results indicate that there are no other feasible sites in Sydney Harbour where we can barge the sediments to according to criteria. This is why Jemena purchased the 140 Tennyson Road property.

. Have you also received confirmation from authorities, for example NSW Fisheries and RMS, that there are no suitable sites between here and Parramatta where sediment can be barged to rather than taken by road?

A: RMS have confirmed this in writing and we can look into putting this on the website.

. Have you considered the option of barging the material once it has been treated?

A: We have to treat the contaminated sediment on site. We have looked into barging the sediment once it has been treated but found no other site. RMS confirmed that a potential site at Silverwater is instead now to become a school.

. Is there an alternative to bringing trucks into our streets to remove the sediment?

A: RMS has confirmed that there are no other sites. The study on the website includes a methodology and other properties that we considered for sediment treatment and sites for the transporting of sediment waste. There was difficulty in finding an accessible site. Jemena would not have purchased the Tennyson Road site if we hadn’t had discussions with RMS.

. Was there a distance limit when looking for an alternate site?

A: There was no set rule, however, the report looked at a 10km radius. The report also considered transporting sediment further out to sea as far as Port Kembla. That option was logistically difficult so Mortlake was deemed the most suitable site.

. The EPA indicates involvement of Fisheries staff in regards to the treatment of the mangroves. I hope there is similar involvement from Authorities in finding the site for this significant development. I want to thank Jemena for their efforts so far.

. Is there a comparative study of how many people each alternative site affects?

A: We encourage you to look at the study on the website. We have used effective technology for the study.

A best case scenario example is the Platypus Remediation Site.

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

ACOUSTIC . What will generate the noise? ASSESSMENT A: The plant and equipment including barges, Water Treatment Plant, pumps and excavator on the barge. The noise assessment modelled the barge and the cases of suction or mechanical dredge in Areas A and B.

. How many pumps will there be and are they external?

A: There are some pumps and mechanics that will be external and make some noise but no different to a construction site that has generators and external machines. This is why we will work in certain hours. The contractor will need their final design details to stay within the requirements.

. Will the noise level be constant with the diesel engine and has the predicted 10 – 15 dB noise impact above normal been assessed at quiet or noisy times?

A: The assessment took an average noise reading over about 10 days.

. When there are peak noisy periods external to the project (such as when helicopters are overhead), will noise criteria levels be exceeded?

A: Can’t say at this stage. The study considered the worse possible noise source which won’t be constant.

. Is the predicted 10 – 15 dB double the current noise level?

A: it is a moderate increase.

AIR QUALITY - AND ODOUR ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL STUDIES OF EIS TRANSPORT . Has traffic modelling allowed for future development in the area? ASSESSMENT A: Certainly the study considered cumulative traffic including additional traffic from further construction at Breakfast Point and other developments at Hilly Street.

. Will the clarification of reduced Saturday hours affect traffic movements?

A: Predicted vehicle movements were modelled on 10 hours a day, 7am – 5pm Mon-Fri, when the peak traffic will occur. On Saturdays, audible activities will stay within 8am – 1pm and inaudible activities may be outside that time.

ECOLOGICAL . Please explain how the silt curtain works to stop turbidity? ASSESSMENT A: The silt curtains (there is one primary curtain and one secondary curtain as a safety net) have timber poles in the sediment bed with the curtain in between. They block movements and catch sediments from being transported through the bay.

. How will the posts for the curtains be driven into the sediment? Will this be noisy?

A: We have modelled this noise as part of our study. There will be some noise. The posts are smaller than telegraph poles. They will be driven in with a pole driver.

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

There will be under 15 poles, driven in during site establishment phase.

. The sea wall is privately owned. Has discussion taken place about expenses and placing attachments on the sea wall?

A: There is no plan to touch the sea wall. The pipeline will be floating off the sea wall.

. Also, will contaminants in the rest of the bay continue to come in with tides and usage of the river?

Please note: this question was asked in a stream of questions so did not receive an answer at the time.

NEXT STEPS AND CLOSE

OTHER Example from Platypus site

Please note: There was general questioning of the two attendees who identified themselves as working on the Platypus remediation site as a project manager and communications manager.

. The Platypus remediation site had an odour control tent. It had a suitable and highly affective system. It had air cut-off curtains and the whole system was under negative pressure (drawing in air and treating it).

. The nearby residents lived 15 – 18 meters above and behind the project on the cliff site, and our nearest neighbour was within 4 metres. Odour was well controlled for the most part. We extended our project by a period of time and our neighbours were happy to see the end of the works just due to the length of the project, not necessarily because of odour and noise issues.

. That stage of the project lasted 2 years. The project had similar contaminants to the Kendall Bay area except the materials were excavated from the landsite. The project area had a medium density residential community (83 apartments) surrounding it above the site. Due to odour enclosure, odour was mostly controlled so that most complaints on this project related to noise, and barges, for a minor period of time.

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

Appendix F Feedback Form

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Information & Feedback Session - Feedback Form

Thank you for attending the Community Information and Feedback Session today. You can provide feedback on the project by completing this form. Please place completed forms in the box provided, return the form by a pre-paid envelope or send the form back to: Post: Urbis E-mail: [email protected] Kendall Bay consultation team Fax: 02 8233 9966 PO Box 5278 Sydney NSW 2000

1. How did you find out about the Community Information and Feedback Session today?

2. Please indicate the answer that best describes you (please tick).

Resident of Breakfast Point Resident of Mortlake Nearby worker Resident of Cabarita Resident of North Strathfield Nearby business owner Resident of Concord Resident, other: ______

3. What is your view of the project overall?

4. A number of technical studies were undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and are on display today. Do you have any specific comments on the methodology or the preliminary findings from the technical studies? Issue Comments Acoustic analysis

Air quality (odour and dust)

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Information & Feedback Session - Feedback Form

Issue Comments Transportation

Marine ecology

Soil and water quality

Hydrology assessment

Social impact assessment

Waste management

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Information & Feedback Session - Feedback Form

Issue Comments Aboriginal and European heritage

Preliminary hazard analysis

Visual impact

5. What other information would you like about the project?

6. What is the best way to consult with you about the project? Tick as many as you like and list other suggestions.

Newsletter Website Social media – please specify______Face to face Local media – please specify______Other: ______

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Information & Feedback Session - Feedback Form

7. Do you have any other comments on the project?

8. Thinking of today’s session, please respond to the following statements (Please tick):

Agree Disagree   I have been able to find out information about the project   The information presented was relevant   The information was clearly presented   My questions were answered   I was able to provide my thoughts and feedback on the proposal   I felt that my feedback was listened to   The project team and facilitators were helpful.

Would you like to receive further information and updates about the project? (Please tick).

Yes No

If yes, please provide the following details:

Name Address Phone No. E-mail

Thank you for your feedback

Appendix G Event Photos

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

URBIS CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL APPENDICES

URBIS APPENDICES CIFS JULY 2014 OUTCOMES REPORT_FINAL

office

Sydney Brisbane Tower 2, Level 23, Darling Park Level 7, 123 Albert Street 201 Sussex Street Sydney, NSW 2000 Brisbane, QLD 4000 t +02 8233 9900 t +07 3007 3800 f +02 8233 9966 f +07 3007 3811

Melbourne Perth Level 12, 120 Collins Street Level 1, 55 St Georges Terrace Melbourne, VIC 3000 Perth, WA 6000 t +03 8663 4888 t +08 9346 0500 Australia • Asia • Middle East f +03 8663 4999 f +08 9221 1779 w urbis.com.au e [email protected]