ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

VOLUME 2 Appendices April 2011

Kurnell B Line Upgrade Appendix A

Director-General’s Requirements

A1 Director-General’s Requirements A2 Director-General’s Requirements Response Table Appendix A1

Director-General’s Requirements

----- Forwarded by William Miles//URSCorp on 14/02/2011 02:23 p.m. -----

"Wren Suzanne" w.gov.au> cc 14/02/2011 02:14 p.m. Subj Caltex Refineries Part 3A Proposal - Council heads of

ect consideration for environmental assessment

Dear Mr Miles

I refer to your letter dated 31 January 2011 regarding the Part 3A Proposal for Caltex Refineries Pty Ltd (Caltex). The proposal includes works to Banksmeadow Terminal which is located in the City of LGA.

Council requests that the following heads of consideration be dealt with in the environmental assessment. • Visual impact of the works on the surrounding locality • Pollution that may be generated during the construction period and the operations of the terminal when works are completed • Traffic impacts that may occur on the surrounding road networks due to construction related vehicles accessing the site • Impact on any vegetation • Noise impacts that may be generated during the construction period and the operations of the terminal when works are completed • Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soils on site • Vibration impacts that may occur due to the works

Council would also like to review and make a formal submission to the proposal during the exhibition period.

Please note, I met you on site and I am Council’s contact officer for this matter. My contact details are below.

regards

Suzanne Wren

Strategic & Development Assessment Planner

Botany Bay City Council www.botanybay.nsw.gov.au

Phone: (02) 93663556 Fax: (02) 93663777

 Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Any views expressed in this message or any attachments are those of the individual sender and cannot be relied upon for any legal relationship and is for information only, except where the sender specifies and with authority states them to be the views of the City of Botany Bay Council. The City of Botany Bay Council expressly disclaims liability for any loss or damage following from the content of this message or attachments, where direct of consequential.

Page 1 of 3

Ellie Caldwell - Fwd: Re: Caltex Jet Fuel Pipeline Upgrade - Site Visit - 9am

From: Chris Ritchie To: Ellie Caldwell Date: 12/01/2011 12:10 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Caltex Jet Fuel Pipeline Upgrade - Site Visit - 9am

>>> Anna Bradley 8/12/2010 11:05 am >>> Thanks for your email advice Peter.

I will let my manager, Chris Ritchie, know that there won't be anyone from Sutherland Council attending the site visit.

Regards,

Anna Bradley Planner Major Project Assessment Department of Planning NSW

Ph: (02) 9228 6503 Fax: (02) 9228 6466 Email: [email protected]

>>> 8/12/2010 10:51 am >>> Anna

Our Environmental Scientist has reviewed the Preliminary Environmental Assessment. The proposed works are basically replacement of the existing jet fuel pipeline that runs from the refinery to the wharf, and the installation of some new pumps and associated plant within the refinery itself. In the context of the Caltex Refinery, not a particularly large job.

Our position is that the proposal is fairly straight forward and if appropriate controls are used throughout the construction phase, it is unlikely to result in any significant environmental harm. The works are restricted to either the refinery itself or the existing pipeline easement that runs from the refinery to the wharf, so the direct impacts would be associated soil and ground water concerns (Acid Sulfate and/or contamination issues).

The PEA has adequately considered the major environmental impacts associated with the works, which are unlikely to be significant. The issues associated with the proposal could be effectively controlled and we could provide comments as part of the 3A review process. Other issues such as Aboriginal Heritage have been discussed in the PEA and could be commented on as part of our review.

The only other issue may be road related matters associated with the proposal;- for example road opening and restoration. We can pass the DA by our Engineers when it is referred to Council and provide comments at that stage.

Given the comments above, I don't think we need to attend the site visit (staff are very familiar with Caltex's operation).

Regards.

Peter Barber Manager - Coastal Assessment Team Sutherland Shire Council

file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2D9A... 12/01/2011 Page 2 of 3

Locked Box 17 Sutherland 1499 Tel: 61 2 9710 0373 Fax: 61 2 9710 0180 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.sutherland.nsw.gov.au

(Important: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender via return mail. You must not disclose the contents of this email to any third party without the consent of the sender.)

From: "Anna Bradley" To: "Cathy McMahon" , , , "Derek Mullins" , , Cc: "Helen Bachas" , "Chris Ritchie" Date: 07/12/2010 04:02 PM Subject: Caltex Jet Fuel Pipeline Upgrade - Site Visit - 9am

Dear All,

Further to my email last week, please see below details for the site visit being undertaken this Friday 10 December at 9am.

WHERE (Meeting Point): The main gatehouse Caltex Refinery 2 Solander St Kurnell

WHEN: Meet at 9am for induction / briefing Site tour starting at 10am Mini bus has been arranged

A copy of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment report for the proposed upgrade project is attached below.

The contact person for Caltex is Helen Bachas (mob: 0424 953 814).

Chris Ritchie (mob: 0417 069 728) and Derek Mullins from the Department will be attending.

Kind regards,

Anna Bradley Planner Major Project Assessment

file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2D9A... 12/01/2011 Page 3 of 3

Department of Planning NSW

Ph: (02) 9228 6503 Fax: (02) 9228 6466 Email: [email protected]

------This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential/privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the Department. You should scan any attached files for viruses. ------[attachment "KBL PEA_final_v4.pdf" deleted by Peter Barber/SSC] ************************************************************************************** Important: This email / fax and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email / fax in error please notify the sender via return mail. You must not disclose the contents of this email / fax to any third party without the consent of the sender. **************************************************************************************

file://C:\Documents and Settings\ecaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2D9A... 12/01/2011 Appendix A2

Director-General’s Requirements Response Table CALTEX KURNELL JET FUEL PIPELINE (B-LINE) (KBL) UPGRADE- SUTHERLANDSHIRE AND BOTANY BAY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS Table A1 Director-General’s Requirements: EA Cross-Reference Table

Relevant EA Government Paraphrased Requirement Chapter or Authority Appendix NSW General Requirements Department of The Environmental Assessment of the Project must include: Planning (DoP) Executive Summary • (18/01/11) An Executive Summary • A detailed description of the following areas: Chapter 1 — Historical operations and activities on the site Chapter 6 and Appendix C — as well as any existing or approved operations or facilities. • Alternatives considered; Chapter 2 • The need for the project; • Upgrades to any infrastructure; • Components and stages of the Project; Chapter 3 • Interactions between the Project and the surrounding area; and • Plans of any proposed building work. • A risk assessment of the environmental impacts of the project, Chapter 19 identifying the areas for further assessment; • A description of the existing environment using sufficient baseline Chapter 6 - 16 data; • An assessment of the potential impacts of the Project, including Chapter 6 - 17 cumulative impacts. • A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise, mitigate, rehabilitate, monitor and/or offset the potential Chapter 6 - 19 impacts of the Project, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risks to the environment. • A statement of commitments outlining all the proposed Chapter 18 environmental management and monitoring measures • A conclusion justifying the event on economic, environmental and social grounds, taking in to consideration whether the Project is Chapter 19 consistent with the aims of the EP&A Act • A signed statement from the author confirming that the information Statement of Validity contained within the document is true. Key Assessment Requirements • Project Need, including a consideration of the project and the Chapter 2 need to upgrade the jet fuel pipeline. • Details of the proposed works, clearly detailing the relevant Chapter 3 and location, land ownership and zoning provisions. Chapter 4 • Hazard and Risk – A Preliminary Hazard Assessment (PHA) prepared in accordance with the departments guidelines. The PHA should consider each of the areas of the Project separately and include: — Identification of the potential hazards associated with the Project to determine the offsite impacts; Chapter 14 and — An estimate of the consequences and the likelihood of Appendix E significant events; — A comparison of the overall risks against the departments risk criteria; and — Proposed safeguards to ensure that risks are minimised. Relevant EA Government Paraphrased Requirement Chapter or Authority Appendix • Noise and Vibration including: — A noise impact assessment including an assessment of predicted noise impacts and road traffic noise both during construction and operation; Chapter 12 and Appendix D — A consideration of vibration from excavation works; and — Details of the proposed noise mitigation, monitoring and management measures. • Air Quality – including a comprehensive Air Quality Assessment of both the construction and operational phase focussing on dust Chapter 13 odour and vapour (including volatile compounds) • Soil and Water including: — A detailed assessment of all soil, surface and ground water impacts; potential soil contamination; details of proposed erosion and sediment controls (during construction), stormwater management, spill containment and bunding; Chapter 6 — Consideration of sea-level rise and how this would be managed; and — Consideration of acid suphate soils and how they would be managed if detected. • Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency including: — a quantitative assessment of potential greenhouse gas Chapter 13 (partially emissions and a qualitative assessment of the impact of these addressed following emissions on the environment; and pers comm with DoP — a detailed description of the measures that would be (Chris Ritchie implemented on site to ensure that the Project is energy 8.02.11)). efficient. • Biodiversity including: — Potential impacts on the marine biology and details of the Chapter 8 and proposed measures to minimise these impacts; and Appendix B — The measures taken to minimise the likelihood of fuel spills. • Aboriginal Heritage including: — Sufficient information and discussion to demonstrate the likely impacts on Aboriginal values/items and proposed mitigation Chapter 9 and measures; and Appendix C — Should aboriginal sites be found, an assessment of the aboriginal sites identified should be done. • Traffic and Transportation including: — an assessment of the potential disruption to traffic and increase in traffic movements during the construction and operation phase; and Chapter 11 — an assessment of the impacts on the road and proposed measures to mitigate these impacts. • General Environmental Risk Analysis: including an environmental risk analysis to identify the environmental impacts (construction and operation), proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant residual environmental impacts after the Chapter 19 application of proposed mitigation measures and an appropriately detailed impact assessment of any additional key environmental impacts identified through risk analysis. NSW • Licensing Requirements – the EA should outline how the current licences under which the Caltex site currently operates will be Department of Chapter 6-16 Environment, adhered to or outline where any variances to the licences would be Climate made should consent be granted. Change and • Noise Impacts - The EA must include an assessment of the Water predicted noise impacts associated with the Project in accordance Chapter 12 and (DECCW) with DECCWs Interim Construction Noise Guidelines and Appendix D (21/12/10) Industrial Noise Policy. Relevant EA Government Paraphrased Requirement Chapter or Authority Appendix • Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values – the EA needs to identify the nature and extent of impacts on cultural heritage values across Chapter 9 and the heritage area. The EA should also include the discussion of Appendix C the potential for finding Aboriginal burials. • Water Quality - The Environmental outcome of the project should be to ensure that there is no pollution of water and that wastewater Chapter 7 is collected, treated and reused where possible. • Site Contamination - the EA needs to consider the possibility of soil contamination and outline suitable mitigation and management Chapter 6 measures. Sutherland • Soil – appropriate measures need to be taken to account for Chapter 6 Shire LGA contaminated soil found within the Project site. Botany Bay • Visual impact of the works on the surrounding locality Chapter 5 LGA (Section 5.3) • Pollution that may be generated during the construction period Chapter 6 and 13 and the operations of the terminal when works are completed • Traffic impacts that may occur on the surrounding road networks Chapter 11 due to construction related vehicles accessing the site • Ecology - Impact on any vegetation Chapter 8 and Appendix B • impacts that may be generated during the construction Noise Chapter 12 and period and the operations of the terminal when works are Appendix D completed • Soils - Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soils on site Chapter 6 • Vibration impacts that may occur due to the works Chapter 12 and Appendix D

Appendix B

Ecology

B1 NSW Atlas Searches B2 EPBC Searches B3 DII Fisheries Searches B4 Noxious Weeds Declarations B5 Habitat Assessments B6 Assessments of Significance B7 Significant Impact Criteria B8 Species List (Flora) B9 Species List (Fauna) Appendix B1

NSW Atlas Searches NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlife Page 1 of 1

DECCW home | help | about the atlas

Search Results

Your selection: Flora, threatened species, recorded since 1980, Selected Area - 151.17172,- 34.05165,151.27715,-33.93394 returned a total of 47 records of 6 species. Report generated on 03/11/2010 - 09:35 (Data valid to 25/04/2010)

Choose up to 3 species to map. * Exotic (non-native) species Legal Plants Map Scientific Name Common Name Count Info Status Asteraceae Senecio spathulatus Coast Groundsel E1 1 Fabaceae (Mimosoideae) Acacia terminalis subsp. Sunshine Wattle E1 39 terminalis Myrtaceae Narrow-leaved Black Eucalyptus nicholii V 1 Peppermint Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly Pilly E1 1 Orchidaceae Pterostylis sp. Botany Bay Botany Bay Bearded Orchid E1 3 Thelymitra atronitida Black-hooded Sun Orchid E4A 2

* Exotic (non-native) species Choose up to 3 species to map.

DISCLAIMER test: The Atlas of Wildlife contains data from a number of sources including government agencies, non-government organisations and private individuals. These data are only indicative and cannot be considered a comprehensive inventory, and may contain errors and omissions. Find out more about the Atlas.

[ Atlas of NSW Wildlife Home ] [ DECCW Home | Feedback | Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy ]

© Copyright, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlasSpecies.jsp 3/11/2010 NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlife Page 1 of 3

DECCW home | help | about the atlas

Search Results

Your selection: Fauna, threatened species, recorded since 1980, Selected Area - 151.17172,- 34.05165,151.27715,-33.93394 returned a total of 1048 records of 40 species. Report generated on 03/11/2010 - 09:29 (Data valid to 25/04/2010)

Choose up to 3 species to map. * Exotic (non-native) species Legal Amphibia Map Scientific Name Common Name Count Info Status Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog E1 54 Myobatrachidae Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet V 36

Legal Aves Map Scientific Name Common Name Count Info Status Anatidae Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck V 1 Ardeidae Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern V 2 Cacatuidae Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V 2 Charadriidae Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand-plover V 7 Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand-plover V 46 Diomedeidae Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross E1 2 Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross V 2 Estrildidae Neochmia ruficauda Star Finch E4 1 Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail V 2 Haematopodidae Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Oystercatcher V 111 Haematopus longirostris Pied Oystercatcher E1 139 Laridae Gygis alba White Tern V 1 Procelsterna cerulea Grey Ternlet V 1 Sterna albifrons Little Tern E1 464 Meliphagidae Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat V 1

White-fronted Chat

http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlasSpecies.jsp 3/11/2010 NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlife Page 2 of 3

Epthianura albifrons (Jardine & Selby, 1828) in Epthianura albifrons the Sydney Metropolitan E2 1 Catchment Management Authority area Procellariidae Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant Petrel E1 1 Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel V 1 Pterodroma neglecta Kermadec Petrel (west V 1 neglecta Pacific subspecies) Psittacidae Lathamus discolor Swift E1 1 Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot E4A 1 wallicus wallicus Eastern Ground Parrot V 2 Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot V 1 Scolopacidae Calidris alba Sanderling V 15 Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot V 23 Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper V 4 Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit V 9 Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper V 9 Strigidae Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V 5

Legal Mammalia Map Scientific Name Common Name Count Info Status Balaenidae Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale V 4 Balaenopteridae Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale V 12 Dugongidae Dugong dugon Dugong E1 4 Emballonuridae Yellow-bellied Sheathtail- Saccolaimus flaviventris V 1 bat Otariidae Arctocephalus pusillus Australian Fur-seal V 1 doriferus Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V 47 Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibersii Eastern Bentwing-bat V 30 oceanensis Myotis macropus Southern Myotis V 2

Legal Reptilia Map Scientific Name Common Name Count Info Status Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas Green Turtle V 1

http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlasSpecies.jsp 3/11/2010 NPWS - Atlas of NSW Wildlife Page 3 of 3

* Exotic (non-native) species Choose up to 3 species to map.

DISCLAIMER test: The Atlas of New South Wales Wildlife contains data from a number of sources including government agencies, non-government organisations and private individuals. These data are only indicative and cannot be considered a comprehensive inventory, and may contain errors and omissions. Find out more about the Atlas.

[ Atlas of NSW Wildlife Home ] [ DECCW Home | Feedback | Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy ]

© Copyright, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlasSpecies.jsp 3/11/2010 Appendix B2

EPBC Searches EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 1 of 17

Protected Matters Search Tool

You are here: Environment HomePBC > E Act > Search 3 November 2010 09:54 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected. Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

You may wish to print this report for reference before moving to other pages or websites.

The Australian Natural Resources Atlas at http://www.environment.gov.au/atlas may provide further environmental information relevant to your selected area. Information about the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessmentsapprovals/index.html

Search Type: Point Buffer: 10 km Coordinates: -33.99417,151.2111

Report Contents: Summary Details  Matters of NES

 Other matters protected by the EPBC Act

 Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgments

This map may contain data which are © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) © PSMA Australia Limited

Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance - see http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessmentsapprovals/guidelines/index.html. World Heritage Properties: None

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 2 of 17

National Heritage Places: 1 Wetlands of International Significance: 1 (Ramsar Sites) Commonwealth Marine Areas: Relevant Threatened Ecological Communities: 2 Threatened Species: 57 Migratory Species: 68

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a place on the Register of the National Estate. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/index.html.

Please note that the current dataset on Commonwealth land is not complete. Further information on Commonwealth land would need to be obtained from relevant sources including Commonwealth agencies, local agencies, and land tenure maps.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species. Information on EPBC Act permit requirements and application forms can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits/index.html. Commonwealth Lands: 7 Commonwealth Heritage Places: 3 Places on the RNE: 56 Listed Marine Species: 88 Whales and Other Cetaceans: 13 Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated. State and Territory Reserves: 8 Other Commonwealth Reserves: None Regional Forest Agreements: None

Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 3 of 17

National Heritage Places [ Dataset Information ] Kurnell Peninsula Headland NSW Wetlands of International Significance [ Dataset Information ] (Ramsar Sites) TOWRA POINT NATURE RESERVE Commonwealth Marine Areas [ Dataset Information ] Approval may be required for a proposed activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth Marine Area, when the action is outside the Commonwealth Marine Area, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken within the Commonwealth Marine Area. Generally the Commonwealth Marine Area stretches from three nautical miles to two hundred nautical miles from the coast. EEZ and Territorial Sea Threatened Ecological Communities [ Dataset Status Type of Presence Information ] Banksia Scrub of the Sydney Region Endangered Community known to occur within area Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Critically Community likely to occur within area Australia Endangered Threatened Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence Anthochaera phrygia Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Regent Honeyeater within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Wandering Albatross area Diomedea exulans amsterdamensis Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within Amsterdam Albatross area Diomedea exulans antipodensis Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Antipodean Albatross area Diomedea exulans exulans Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour may Tristan Albatross occur within area Diomedea exulans gibsoni Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Gibson's Albatross area Lathamus discolor Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Swift Parrot within area Macronectes giganteus Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within Southern Giant-Petrel area Macronectes halli Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Northern Giant-Petrel area Neophema chrysogaster Critically Species or species habitat may occur within Orange-bellied Parrot Endangered area Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within Gould's Petrel area Pterodroma neglecta neglecta Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Kermadec Petrel (western) area Rostratula australis Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Australian Painted Snipe area Thalassarche bulleri Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Buller's Albatross area Thalassarche cauta cauta Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross area Thalassarche cauta salvini Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 4 of 17

Salvin's Albatross area Thalassarche cauta steadi Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within White-capped Albatross area Thalassarche melanophris Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Black-browed Albatross area Thalassarche melanophris impavida Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Campbell Albatross area Frogs Heleioporus australiacus Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Giant Burrowing Frog within area Litoria aurea Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Green and Golden Bell Frog within area Litoria littlejohni Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Littlejohn's Tree Frog, Heath Frog area Litoria raniformis Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Growling Grass Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Green and area Golden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog Mammals Balaenoptera musculus Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within Blue Whale area Chalinolobus dwyeri Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat area Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within population) area Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll (southeastern mainland population) Eubalaena australis Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur Southern Right Whale within area Isoodon obesulus obesulus Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Southern Brown Bandicoot within area Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur Humpback Whale within area Petrogale penicillata Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby area Potorous tridactylus tridactylus Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Long-nosed Potoroo (SE mainland) area Pseudomys novaehollandiae Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur New Holland Mouse within area Pteropus poliocephalus Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour Grey-headed Flying-fox known to occur within area Ray-finned fishes Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Australian Grayling within area Reptiles Caretta caretta Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Loggerhead Turtle within area Chelonia mydas Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur Green Turtle within area Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth within area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 5 of 17

Eretmochelys imbricata Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Hawksbill Turtle within area Hoplocephalus bungaroides Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Broad-headed Snake within area Natator depressus Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Flatback Turtle within area Sharks Carcharias taurus (east coast population) Critically Congregation or aggregation known to Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) Endangered occur within area Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Great White Shark area Galeorhinus galeus Conservation Species or species habitat may occur within School Shark, Eastern School Shark, Snapper Shark, Dependent area Tope, Soupfin Shark Pristis zijsron Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish area Rhincodon typus Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Whale Shark area Plants Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Sunshine Wattle within area Caladenia tessellata Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Daddy Long-legs within area Cryptostylis hunteriana Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Leafless Tongue-orchid area Hypsela sessiliflora Extinct Species or species habitat may occur within area Melaleuca biconvexa Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within Biconvex Paperbark area Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Prostanthera densa Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Villous Mintbush within area Pterostylis saxicola Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Sydney Plains Greenhood within area Pterostylis sp. Botany Bay (A.Bishop J221/1-13) Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur Botany Bay Bearded Greenhood within area Syzygium paniculatum Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Magenta Lilly Pilly, Magenta Cherry, Pocket-less Brush within area Cherry, Scrub Cherry, Creek Lilly Pilly, Brush Cherry Thelymitra sp. Kangaloon (D.L.Jones 18108) Critically Species or species habitat may occur within Kangaloon Sun-orchid Endangered area Thesium australe Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Austral Toadflax, Toadflax within area Migratory Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence Migratory Terrestrial Species Birds Haliaeetus leucogaster Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur White-bellied Sea-Eagle within area Hirundapus caudacutus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 6 of 17

White-throated Needletail area Merops ornatus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Rainbow Bee-eater area Monarcha melanopsis Migratory Breeding may occur within area Black-faced Monarch Myiagra cyanoleuca Migratory Breeding likely to occur within area Satin Flycatcher Neophema chrysogaster Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Orange-bellied Parrot area Rhipidura rufifrons Migratory Breeding may occur within area Rufous Fantail Xanthomyza phrygia Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur Regent Honeyeater within area Migratory Wetland Species Birds Actitis hypoleucos Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Common Sandpiper Ardea alba Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Great Egret, White Egret area Ardea ibis Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Cattle Egret area Arenaria interpres Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Ruddy Turnstone Calidris acuminata Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris alba Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Sanderling Calidris canutus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Red Knot, Knot Calidris ferruginea Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ruficollis Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Red-necked Stint Calidris tenuirostris Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Great Knot Charadrius bicinctus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Double-banded Plover Charadrius leschenaultii Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover Charadrius veredus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel Gallinago hardwickii Migratory Roosting may occur within area Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe Heteroscelus brevipes Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Grey-tailed Tattler Limicola falcinellus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Broad-billed Sandpiper Limosa lapponica Migratory Roosting known to occur within area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 7 of 17

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Black-tailed Godwit Numenius madagascariensis Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Eastern Curlew Numenius minutus Migratory Roosting likely to occur within area Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Whimbrel Pluvialis fulva Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Grey Plover Rostratula benghalensis s. lat. Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Painted Snipe area Xenus cinereus Migratory Roosting known to occur within area Terek Sandpiper Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Fork-tailed Swift area Ardea alba Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Great Egret, White Egret area Ardea ibis Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Cattle Egret area Calonectris leucomelas Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Streaked Shearwater area Diomedea amsterdamensis Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Amsterdam Albatross area Diomedea antipodensis Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Antipodean Albatross area Diomedea dabbenena Migratory Foraging, feeding or related behaviour may Tristan Albatross occur within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Wandering Albatross area Diomedea gibsoni Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Gibson's Albatross area Macronectes giganteus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Southern Giant-Petrel area Macronectes halli Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Northern Giant-Petrel area Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Gould's Petrel area Puffinus leucomelas Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Streaked Shearwater area Sterna albifrons Migratory Breeding likely to occur within area Little Tern Thalassarche bulleri Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Buller's Albatross area Thalassarche cauta (sensu stricto) Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 8 of 17

Thalassarche impavida Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Campbell Albatross area Thalassarche melanophris Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Black-browed Albatross area Thalassarche salvini Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Salvin's Albatross area Thalassarche steadi Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within White-capped Albatross area Migratory Marine Species Mammals Balaenoptera edeni Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Bryde's Whale area Balaenoptera musculus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Blue Whale area Caperea marginata Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Pygmy Right Whale area Eubalaena australis Migratory Species or species habitat known to occur Southern Right Whale within area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Dusky Dolphin area Megaptera novaeangliae Migratory Species or species habitat known to occur Humpback Whale within area Orcinus orca Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Killer Whale, Orca area Reptiles Caretta caretta Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur Loggerhead Turtle within area Chelonia mydas Migratory Species or species habitat known to occur Green Turtle within area Dermochelys coriacea Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth within area Eretmochelys imbricata Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur Hawksbill Turtle within area Natator depressus Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur Flatback Turtle within area Sharks Carcharodon carcharias Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Great White Shark area Rhincodon typus Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within Whale Shark area Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Listed Marine Species [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Listed Roosting known to occur within area Common Sandpiper Apus pacificus Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Fork-tailed Swift overfly area marine area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 9 of 17

Ardea alba Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Great Egret, White Egret overfly area marine area Ardea ibis Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Cattle Egret overfly area marine area Arenaria interpres Listed Roosting known to occur within area Ruddy Turnstone Calidris acuminata Listed Roosting known to occur within area Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris alba Listed Roosting known to occur within area Sanderling Calidris canutus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Red Knot, Knot overfly marine area Calidris ferruginea Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Curlew Sandpiper overfly marine area Calidris ruficollis Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Red-necked Stint overfly marine area Calidris subminuta Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Long-toed Stint overfly marine area Calidris tenuirostris Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Great Knot overfly marine area Calonectris leucomelas Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Streaked Shearwater area Catharacta skua Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Great Skua area Charadrius bicinctus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Double-banded Plover overfly marine area Charadrius leschenaultii Listed Roosting known to occur within area Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus Listed Roosting known to occur within area Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover Charadrius ruficapillus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Red-capped Plover overfly marine area Charadrius veredus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel overfly marine area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 10 of 17

Diomedea amsterdamensis Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Amsterdam Albatross area Diomedea antipodensis Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Antipodean Albatross area Diomedea dabbenena Listed Foraging, feeding or related behaviour may Tristan Albatross occur within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Wandering Albatross area Diomedea gibsoni Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Gibson's Albatross area Gallinago hardwickii Listed - Roosting may occur within area Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe overfly marine area Gallinago megala Listed - Roosting likely to occur within area Swinhoe's Snipe overfly marine area Gallinago stenura Listed - Roosting likely to occur within area Pin-tailed Snipe overfly marine area Haliaeetus leucogaster Listed Species or species habitat likely to occur White-bellied Sea-Eagle within area Heteroscelus brevipes Listed Roosting known to occur within area Grey-tailed Tattler Heteroscelus incanus Listed Roosting known to occur within area Wandering Tattler Himantopus himantopus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Black-winged Stilt overfly marine area Hirundapus caudacutus Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within White-throated Needletail overfly area marine area Lathamus discolor Listed - Species or species habitat likely to occur Swift Parrot overfly within area marine area Limicola falcinellus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Broad-billed Sandpiper overfly marine area Limosa lapponica Listed Roosting known to occur within area Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Black-tailed Godwit overfly marine area Macronectes giganteus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Southern Giant-Petrel area Macronectes halli Listed Species or species habitat may occur within

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 11 of 17

Northern Giant-Petrel area Merops ornatus Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Rainbow Bee-eater overfly area marine area Monarcha melanopsis Listed - Breeding may occur within area Black-faced Monarch overfly marine area Myiagra cyanoleuca Listed - Breeding likely to occur within area Satin Flycatcher overfly marine area Neophema chrysogaster Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Orange-bellied Parrot overfly area marine area Numenius madagascariensis Listed Roosting known to occur within area Eastern Curlew Numenius minutus Listed - Roosting likely to occur within area Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel overfly marine area Numenius phaeopus Listed Roosting known to occur within area Whimbrel Pluvialis fulva Listed Roosting known to occur within area Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis squatarola Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Grey Plover overfly marine area Recurvirostra novaehollandiae Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Red-necked Avocet overfly marine area Rhipidura rufifrons Listed - Breeding may occur within area Rufous Fantail overfly marine area Rostratula benghalensis s. lat. Listed - Species or species habitat may occur within Painted Snipe overfly area marine area Sterna albifrons Listed Breeding likely to occur within area Little Tern Thalassarche bulleri Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Buller's Albatross area Thalassarche cauta (sensu stricto) Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross area Thalassarche impavida Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Campbell Albatross area Thalassarche melanophris Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Black-browed Albatross area

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 12 of 17

Thalassarche salvini Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Salvin's Albatross area Thalassarche steadi Listed Species or species habitat may occur within White-capped Albatross area Xenus cinereus Listed - Roosting known to occur within area Terek Sandpiper overfly marine area Mammals Arctocephalus forsteri Listed Species or species habitat may occur within New Zealand Fur-seal area Arctocephalus pusillus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Australian Fur-seal, Australo-African Fur-seal area Ray-finned fishes Acentronura tentaculata Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Shortpouch Pygmy Pipehorse area Festucalex cinctus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Girdled Pipefish area Filicampus tigris Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Tiger Pipefish area Heraldia nocturna Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Upside-down Pipefish, Eastern Upside-down Pipefish, area Eastern Upside-down Pipefish Hippichthys penicillus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Beady Pipefish, Steep-nosed Pipefish area Hippocampus abdominalis Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Bigbelly Seahorse, Eastern Potbelly Seahorse, New area Zealand Potbelly Seahorse Hippocampus whitei Listed Species or species habitat may occur within White's Seahorse, Crowned Seahorse, Sydney Seahorse area Histiogamphelus briggsii Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Crested Pipefish, Briggs' Crested Pipefish, Briggs' area Pipefish Lissocampus runa Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Javelin Pipefish area Maroubra perserrata Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Sawtooth Pipefish area Notiocampus ruber Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Red Pipefish area Phyllopteryx taeniolatus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Common Seadragon, Weedy Seadragon area Solegnathus spinosissimus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Spiny Pipehorse, Australian Spiny Pipehorse area Solenostomus cyanopterus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Robust Ghostpipefish, Blue-finned Ghost Pipefish, area Solenostomus paegnius Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Rough-snout Ghost Pipefish area Solenostomus paradoxus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Ornate Ghostpipefish, Harlequin Ghost Pipefish, Ornate area Ghost Pipefish Stigmatopora argus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 13 of 17

Spotted Pipefish, Gulf Pipefish area Stigmatopora nigra Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Widebody Pipefish, Wide-bodied Pipefish, Black Pipefish area Syngnathoides biaculeatus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Double-end Pipehorse, Double-ended Pipehorse, area Alligator Pipefish Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Bentstick Pipefish, Bend Stick Pipefish, Short-tailed area Pipefish Urocampus carinirostris Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Hairy Pipefish area Vanacampus margaritifer Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Mother-of-pearl Pipefish area Reptiles Caretta caretta Listed Species or species habitat likely to occur Loggerhead Turtle within area Chelonia mydas Listed Species or species habitat known to occur Green Turtle within area Dermochelys coriacea Listed Species or species habitat likely to occur Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth within area Eretmochelys imbricata Listed Species or species habitat likely to occur Hawksbill Turtle within area Natator depressus Listed Species or species habitat likely to occur Flatback Turtle within area Pelamis platurus Listed Species or species habitat may occur within Yellow-bellied Seasnake area Whales and Other Cetaceans [ Dataset Information ] Status Type of Presence Balaenoptera acutorostrata Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Minke Whale area Balaenoptera edeni Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Bryde's Whale area Balaenoptera musculus Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Blue Whale area Caperea marginata Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Pygmy Right Whale area Delphinus delphis Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Common Dophin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin area Eubalaena australis Cetacean Species or species habitat known to occur Southern Right Whale within area Grampus griseus Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Risso's Dolphin, Grampus area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Dusky Dolphin area Megaptera novaeangliae Cetacean Species or species habitat known to occur Humpback Whale within area Orcinus orca Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Killer Whale, Orca area Stenella attenuata Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin area Tursiops aduncus Cetacean Species or species habitat likely to occur

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 14 of 17

Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Bottlenose within area Dolphin Tursiops truncatus s. str. Cetacean Species or species habitat may occur within Bottlenose Dolphin area Commonwealth Lands [ Dataset Information ] Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia Communications, Information Technology and the Arts - Australian Postal Corporation Communications, Information Technology and the Arts - Telstra Corporation Limited Defence Defence - Defence Housing Authority Transport and Regional Services - Airservices Australia Unknown Commonwealth Heritage Places [ Dataset Information ] Cape Baily Lighthouse NSW Malabar Headland NSW School of Musketry and Officers Mess, Randwick Army Barracks NSW Places on the RNE [ Dataset Information ] Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed. Historic Avonmore Terrace NSW Bare Island Fort NSW Blenheim House NSW Botany Post Office NSW Cape Baily Lighthouse NSW Captain Cooks Landing Place Historic Site NSW Corona & Hygeia Victorian Terraces NSW Daceyville Garden Suburb Urban Conservation Area NSW Essex NSW Goldring House NSW Hannans Butcher Shop NSW High Cross Precinct NSW House NSW Kogarah Community Aid and Information Centre NSW Kogarah School of Arts former NSW La Perouse Memorial Group NSW La Perouse Monuments Historic Site NSW Members Stand Royal NSW Milford Haven NSW Newmarket House NSW Newmarket Precinct NSW Nugal Hall NSW

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 15 of 17

Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area NSW Prince of Wales Hospital Gates and Fence NSW Prince of Wales Hospital Group NSW Prince of Wales Hospital Main Block (former) NSW Prince of Wales Hospital Outpatients Building (former) NSW Railway Station Western Platform Building NSW Randwick Police Station NSW Randwick Post Office NSW Randwick Town Hall NSW Ritz Cinema NSW Royal Hotel NSW Sacred Heart Monastry & Chapel excluding 1921 & c1960 additions NSW School of Musketry and Officers' Mess, Randwick Army Barracks NSW Sir Joseph Banks Hotel (former) NSW St Brigids Catholic Church NSW St Judes Anglican Church & Cemetery NSW St Judes Anglican Church Group NSW St Judes Rectory and Curates Residence NSW St Magdalenes Retreat NSW St Matthews Anglican Church NSW St Peters Anglican Church & Graveyard NSW Statue of Captain James Cook RN NSW Superintendents Residence (former) NSW The Big Stable NSW The Watch Tower NSW Ventnor NSW Natural Cape Banks NSW Jennifer Street Bushland NSW Kurnell Peninsula Towra Point Area NSW Little Bay Geological Site NSW Long Bay Area NSW Malabar Headland NSW St Peters Brickpit Geological Site NSW Towra Point Aquatic Reserve NSW Extra Information State and Territory Reserves [ Dataset Information ] Boat Harbour Aquatic Reserve, NSW Botany Bay National Park, NSW Bronte-Coogee Aquatic Reserve, NSW Cape Banks Aquatic Reserve, NSW Towra Point Aquatic Reserve, NSW

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 16 of 17

Towra Point Nature Reserve, NSW Towra Point SZ Stink Pot Bay Aquatic Reserve, NSW Towra Point SZ Weeny/Quibray Bays Aquatic Reserve, NSW

Caveat

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under "type of presence". For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.

Only selected species covered by the migratory and marine provisions of the Act have been mapped.

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

 threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

 some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

 some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

 migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers.

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

 non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites;

 seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent.

Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Acknowledgments

This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The Department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Page 17 of 17

 New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service

 Department of Sustainability and Environment,

 Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,

 Department of Environment and Heritage, Planning SA

 Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

 Environmental Protection Agency,

 Birds Australia

 Australian and Bat Banding Scheme

 Australian National Wildlife Collection

 Natural history museums of Australia

 Queensland Herbarium

 National Herbarium of NSW

 Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria

 Tasmanian Herbarium

 State Herbarium of South Australia

 Northern Territory Herbarium

 Western Australian Herbarium

 Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra

 University of New England

 Other groups and individuals

ANUCliM Version 1.8, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University was used extensively for the production of draft maps of species distribution. Environment Australia is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Last updated: Thursday, 20-Nov-2008 14:17:56 EST Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Telephone: +61 (0)2 6274 1111

© Commonwealth of Australia 2004

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/erin/ert/epbc/epbc_report.pl?searchtype=point;latd... 3/11/2010 Appendix B3

DII Fisheries Searches Threatened fish and marine vegetation | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 1 of 1

Search results for listings by region

The provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 cover all fish (freshwater, estuarine and marine), aquatic invertebrates and marine plants. The definition of fish includes any marine, estuarine or freshwater fish or other aquatic (e.g., oysters, prawns, sharks, rays, starfish, insects and worms), at any stage of their life history. It does not include whales, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Listings found in the Sydney Metro CMA

ScientificName CommonName Status Profile

Carcharius taurus Grey nurse shark Critically endangered profile Pristis zijsron Green sawfish Presumed extinct profile Austrocordulia leonardi Sydney hawk dragonfly Endangered profile Archaeophya adamsi Adam's emerald dragonfly Endangered profile Carcharadon carcharias Great white shark Vulnerable profile Epinephelus daemelii Black cod Vulnerable profile

Privacy | Legal | Report a problem © State of New South Wales, 2005 | ServiceNSW

http://pas.dpi.nsw.gov.au/Species/Species_byRegionResult.aspx?Region=Sydney+Me... 11/01/2011 Appendix B4

Noxious Weeds Declarations Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 1 of 6

Noxious weed declarations

This is a print-friendly page Return to start page

Noxious weed declarations for The Council of the City of Botany Bay

The following weeds are declared noxious in the control area of The Council of the City of Botany Bay:

Weed Class Legal requirements African feathergrass [Pennisetum 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed macrourum] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration African turnipweed [Sisymbrium 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed runcinatum] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration African turnipweed [Sisymbrium 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed thellungii] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Alligator weed [Alternanthera 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed philoxeroides] Anchored water hyacinth [Eichhornia 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept azurea] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Annual ragweed [Ambrosia 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed artemisiifolia] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Arrowhead [Sagittaria montevidensis] 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. This is an All of NSW declaration Artichoke thistle [Cynara cardunculus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Athel pine [Tamarix aphylla] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Bear-skin fescue [Festuca gautieri] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Bitou bush [Chrysanthemoides 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed monilifera subspecies rotundata] Black knapweed [Centaurea nigra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Blackberry [Rubus fruticosus aggregate 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the species] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control except cultivars Black satin, Chehalem, authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly Chester Thornless, Dirksen Thornless, Loch distributed Ness, Murrindindi, Silvan, Smoothstem, This is an All of NSW declaration Thornfree Boneseed [Chrysanthemoides monilifera 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed subspecies monilifera] Bridal creeper [Asparagus 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 2 of 6

asparagoides] This is an All of NSW declaration Broomrapes [Orobanche species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept Includes all Orobanche species except the free of the plant native O. cernua variety australiana and O. This is an All of NSW declaration minor Burr ragweed [Ambrosia confertiflora] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Cabomba [All Cabomba species except 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed C. furcata] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Castor oil plant [Ricinus communis] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Cayenne snakeweed [Stachytarpheta 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed cayennensis] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Chilean needle grass [Nassella 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the neesiana] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Chinese violet [Asystasia gangetica 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept subspecies micrantha] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Clockweed [Gaura parviflora] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Corn sowthistle [Sonchus arvensis] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Dodder [Cuscuta species] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Includes All Cuscuta species except the must be complied with native species C. australis, C. tasmanica and This is an All of NSW declaration C. victoriana East Indian hygrophila [Hygrophila 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept polysperma] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Espartillo [Amelichloa brachychaeta, 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Amelichloa caudata] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Eurasian water milfoil [Myriophyllum 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept spicatum] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Fine-bristled burr grass [Cenchrus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed brownii] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Fountain grass [Pennisetum setaceum] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Gallon's curse [Cenchrus biflorus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 3 of 6

Glaucous starthistle [Carthamus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed glaucus] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Golden thistle [Scolymus hispanicus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Green cestrum [Cestrum parqui] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Harrisia cactus [Harrisia species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Hawkweed [Hieracium species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Horsetail [Equisetum species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Hygrophila [Hygrophila costata] 2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant Hymenachne [Hymenachne 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept amplexicaulis] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Karoo thorn [Acacia karroo] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Kochia [Bassia scoparia] 1 except B.scoparia subspecies trichophylla except Bassia scoparia subspecies The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept trichophylla free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Lagarosiphon [Lagarosiphon major] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Lantana [Lantana species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold or knowingly distributed. Leafy elodea [Egeria densa] 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. This is an All of NSW declaration Lippia [Phyla canescens] 4 The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed by any person other than a person involved in hay or lucerne production. The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority. This is an All of NSW declaration Long-leaf willow primrose [Ludwigia 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed and longifolia] the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Ludwigia [Ludwigia peruviana] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Mexican feather grass [Nassella 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept tenuissima] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mexican poppy [Argemone mexicana] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 4 of 6

must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Miconia [Miconia species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mimosa [Mimosa pigra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mossman River grass [Cenchrus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed echinatus] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Pampas grass [Cortaderia species] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Parthenium weed [Parthenium 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept hysterophorus] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Pellitory [Parietaria judaica] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Pond apple [Annona glabra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly acacia [Acacia nilotica] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly pear [Cylindropuntia species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly pear [Opuntia species except O. 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the ficus-indica] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Privet (Broad-leaf) [Ligustrum lucidum] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Privet (Narrow-leaf/Chinese) [Ligustrum 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the sinense] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Red rice [Oryza rufipogon] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Rhus tree [Toxicodendron 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the succedaneum] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority This is an All of NSW declaration Rubbervine [Cryptostegia grandiflora] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 5 of 6

Sagittaria [Sagittaria platyphylla] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Salvinia [Salvinia molesta] 2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant Senegal tea plant [Gymnocoronis 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept spilanthoides] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Serrated tussock [Nassella trichotoma] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Siam weed [Chromolaena odorata] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Smooth-stemmed turnip [Brassica 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed barrelieri subspecies oxyrrhina] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Soldier thistle [Picnomon acarna] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Spotted knapweed [Centaurea stoebe 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept subspecies micranthos] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration St. John's wort [Hypericum perforatum] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Texas blueweed [Helianthus ciliaris] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Water caltrop [Trapa species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes] 2 Whole of NSW except the local control authorities listed as control class 3 or 4 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water lettuce [Pistia stratiotes] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water soldier [Stratiotes aloides] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Willows [Salix species] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Includes all Salix species except S. must be complied with babylonica, S. x reichardtii, S. x calodendron This is an All of NSW declaration Witchweed [Striga species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept Striga species except the native Striga free of the plant parviflora This is an All of NSW declaration Yellow burrhead [Limnocharis flava] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 6 of 6

This is an All of NSW declaration Yellow nutgrass [Cyperus esculentus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration

Privacy | Legal | Report a problem © State of New South Wales, 2005 | ServiceNSW

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 1 of 6

Noxious weed declarations

This is a print-friendly page Return to start page

Noxious weed declarations for Sutherland Shire Council

The following weeds are declared noxious in the control area of Sutherland Shire Council:

Weed Class Legal requirements African feathergrass [Pennisetum 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed macrourum] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration African olive [Olea europaea subspecies 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the cuspidata] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed African turnipweed [Sisymbrium 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed runcinatum] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration African turnipweed [Sisymbrium 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed thellungii] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Alligator weed [Alternanthera 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed philoxeroides] Anchored water hyacinth [Eichhornia 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept azurea] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Annual ragweed [Ambrosia 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed artemisiifolia] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Arrowhead [Sagittaria montevidensis] 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. This is an All of NSW declaration Artichoke thistle [Cynara cardunculus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Athel pine [Tamarix aphylla] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Bear-skin fescue [Festuca gautieri] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Bitou bush [Chrysanthemoides 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the monilifera subspecies rotundata] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Black knapweed [Centaurea nigra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Blackberry [Rubus fruticosus aggregate 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the species] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control except cultivars Black satin, Chehalem, authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly Chester Thornless, Dirksen Thornless, Loch distributed

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 2 of 6

Ness, Murrindindi, Silvan, Smoothstem, This is an All of NSW declaration Thornfree Boneseed [Chrysanthemoides monilifera 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the subspecies monilifera] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Bridal creeper [Asparagus 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. asparagoides] This is an All of NSW declaration Broomrapes [Orobanche species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept Includes all Orobanche species except the free of the plant native O. cernua variety australiana and O. This is an All of NSW declaration minor Burr ragweed [Ambrosia confertiflora] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Cabomba [All Cabomba species except 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed C. furcata] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Castor oil plant [Ricinus communis] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Cayenne snakeweed [Stachytarpheta 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed cayennensis] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Chilean needle grass [Nassella 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the neesiana] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Chinese violet [Asystasia gangetica 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept subspecies micrantha] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Clockweed [Gaura parviflora] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Corn sowthistle [Sonchus arvensis] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Dodder [Cuscuta species] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Includes All Cuscuta species except the must be complied with native species C. australis, C. tasmanica and This is an All of NSW declaration C. victoriana East Indian hygrophila [Hygrophila 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept polysperma] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Espartillo [Amelichloa brachychaeta, 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Amelichloa caudata] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Eurasian water milfoil [Myriophyllum 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept spicatum] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Fine-bristled burr grass [Cenchrus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed brownii] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 3 of 6

Fountain grass [Pennisetum setaceum] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Gallon's curse [Cenchrus biflorus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Glaucous starthistle [Carthamus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed glaucus] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Golden thistle [Scolymus hispanicus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Green cestrum [Cestrum parqui] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Harrisia cactus [Harrisia species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Hawkweed [Hieracium species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Horsetail [Equisetum species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Hygrophila [Hygrophila costata] 2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant Hymenachne [Hymenachne 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept amplexicaulis] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Karoo thorn [Acacia karroo] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Kochia [Bassia scoparia] 1 except B.scoparia subspecies trichophylla except Bassia scoparia subspecies The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept trichophylla free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Lagarosiphon [Lagarosiphon major] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Lantana [Lantana species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold or knowingly distributed. Leafy elodea [Egeria densa] 4 The plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed. This is an All of NSW declaration Lippia [Phyla canescens] 4 The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed by any person other than a person involved in hay or lucerne production. The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority. This is an All of NSW declaration Long-leaf willow primrose [Ludwigia 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed and longifolia] the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 4 of 6

Ludwigia [Ludwigia peruviana] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Mexican feather grass [Nassella 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept tenuissima] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mexican poppy [Argemone mexicana] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Miconia [Miconia species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mimosa [Mimosa pigra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Mossman River grass [Cenchrus 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed echinatus] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Pampas grass [Cortaderia species] 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed Parthenium weed [Parthenium 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept hysterophorus] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Pellitory [Parietaria judaica] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Pond apple [Annona glabra] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly acacia [Acacia nilotica] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly pear [Cylindropuntia species] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Prickly pear [Opuntia species except O. 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the ficus-indica] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration Privet (Broad-leaf) [Ligustrum lucidum] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Privet (Narrow-leaf/Chinese) [Ligustrum 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the sinense] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Red rice [Oryza rufipogon] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Rhus tree [Toxicodendron 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the succedaneum] measures specified in a management plan published by the local control

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 5 of 6

authority This is an All of NSW declaration Rubbervine [Cryptostegia grandiflora] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Sagittaria [Sagittaria platyphylla] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Salvinia [Salvinia molesta] 2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant Senegal tea plant [Gymnocoronis 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept spilanthoides] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Serrated tussock [Nassella trichotoma] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed Siam weed [Chromolaena odorata] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Smooth-stemmed turnip [Brassica 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed barrelieri subspecies oxyrrhina] must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Soldier thistle [Picnomon acarna] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Spotted knapweed [Centaurea stoebe 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept subspecies micranthos] free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration St. John's wort [Hypericum perforatum] 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority Texas blueweed [Helianthus ciliaris] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration Water caltrop [Trapa species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water hyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes] 2 Whole of NSW except the local control authorities listed as control class 3 or 4 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water lettuce [Pistia stratiotes] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Water soldier [Stratiotes aloides] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Willows [Salix species] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed Includes all Salix species except S. must be complied with babylonica, S. x reichardtii, S. x calodendron This is an All of NSW declaration

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Noxious weed declarations | NSW Department of Primary Industries Page 6 of 6

Witchweed [Striga species] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept Striga species except the native Striga free of the plant parviflora This is an All of NSW declaration Yellow burrhead [Limnocharis flava] 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant This is an All of NSW declaration Yellow nutgrass [Cyperus esculentus] 5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with This is an All of NSW declaration

Privacy | Legal | Report a problem © State of New South Wales, 2005 | ServiceNSW

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app?sq_... 15/12/2010 Appendix B5

Habitat Assessments Appendix B-5 FLORA

Significant TSC Act EPBC Act Likelihood based on Assessment of Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Study Area Distribution and Habitat Suitability Impact Status Status habitat suitability Significance Cirteria Acacia terminalis Sunshine Wattle Endangered Endangered 39 Atlas; Coastal scrub and dry sclerophyll woodland on sandy Numerous records of this species occur within the This species is considered Required Required subsp. terminalis PMST soils. Habitat is generally sparse and scattered and northern section of the study area. Given that this likely to occur with the study generally highly modified. species can tolerate and grow in modified area. landscapes there is some potential for the species to occur within the area of impact, either in the seed bank or as juvenile plants. Caladenia Thick-lipped Spider- Vulnerable _ Predicted PMST Little is known of the precise habitat requirements of C. No populations of this species are known to occur in This species is considered Not required - tessellata orchid tessellata . In New South Wales, the species is the Sydney Region. The closest population is unlikely to occur with the study generally found in grassy dry sclerophyll woodland on contained within Morton Bay National Park. area. clay loam or sandy soils, less commonly in heathland on sandy loam soils.

Cryptostylis Leafless Tongue Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Does not appear to have well defined habitat This species is not known to occur within relevant This species is considered Not required Not required hunteriana Orchid preferences and is known from a range of sub-regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. unlikely to occur with the study communities, including swamp-heath and woodland. area. The larger populations typically occur in woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla ), Silvertop Ash (E. sieberi ), Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera ) and Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis ); appears to prefer open areas in the understorey of this community.

Hypsela _ Endangered Extinct Predicted PMST Known to grow in damp places, on the Cumberland This species is known from one population in recent This species is considered Not required Not required sessiliflora Plain, including freshwater wetland, grassland/alluvial years in the Penrith LGA area. No suitable habitat is unlikely to occur with the study woodland and an alluvial woodland/shale plains present within the study area area. woodland (Cumberland Plain Woodland) ecotone. May be an early successional species that benefits from some disturbance. Melaleuca Biconvex Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Biconvex Paperbark generally grows in damp places, This species is not known to occur within relevant This species is considered Not required Not required biconvexa Paperbark often near streams or low-lying areas on alluvial soils sub-regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. No suitable unlikely to occur with the study of low slopes or sheltered aspects. habitat is present within the study area area.

Pimela curviflora _ Vulnerable Vulnerable Known Atlas; Occurs on shaley/lateritic soils over sandstone and This species is known to occur within the Pittwater This species is considered Not required Not required var. curviflora PMST shale/sandstone transition soils on ridgetops and upper (part B) sub-region of the Sydney Metro CMA. unlikely to occur with the study slopes amongst woodlands. However, no suitable habitat is present for the area. species given the disturbed nature of the area.

Prostanthera Villous Mintbush Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Villous Mintbush is generally grows in sclerophyll forest This species is not known to occur within relevant This species is considered Not required Not required densa and shrubland on coastal headlands and near coastal sub-regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. unlikely to occur with the study ranges, chiefly on sandstone, and rocky slopes near area. the sea. Pterostylis sp. Botany bay Endangered Endangered 3 Atlas; Occupies moist level sites on skeletal sandy soils This species is known to occur in close proximity to This species is considered Not required Not required Botany Bay Bearded Orchid PMST derived from sandstone. Associated vegetation is the study area within the Botany bay National park. unlikely to occur with the study coastal heath dominated by Melaleuca nodosa and However, no populations are known to occur within area. Baeckea imbricata . Restricted to the Sydney region the study area or area of impact, itself. Furthermore where it is known from a small number of sites within given the disturbed nature of the study area, no Botany Bay National Park on the Kurnell Peninsula. suitable habitat is considered likely to occur. Appendix B-5 FLORA

Significant TSC Act EPBC Act Likelihood based on Assessment of Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Study Area Distribution and Habitat Suitability Impact Status Status habitat suitability Significance Cirteria Pterostylis Sydney Plains Endangered Endangered Predicted PMST Most commonly found growing in small pockets of This species is not known to occur within relevant This species is considered Not required Not required saxicola Greenhood shallow soil in depressions on sandstone rock shelves sub-regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. Given the unlikely to occur with the study above cliff lines. The vegetation communities above highly modified nature of the area of impact no area. the shelves where Pterostylis saxicola occurs are suitable habitat is likely to be present. sclerophyll forest or woodland on shale/sandstone transition soils or shale soils. Senecio Coast Groundsel Endangered _ 1 Atlas Coast Groundsel grows on primary dunes. Coast This species is known to occur in close proximity to This species is considered Not required - spathulatus Groundsel occurs in Nadgee Nature Reserve (Cape the study area, near Kurnell. However, no unlikely to occur with the study Howe) and between Kurnell in Sydney and Myall Lakes populations are known to occur within the study area area. National Park. or area of impact, itself. No coastal dune habitat occurs within the study area.

Syzygium Magenta Lilly Pilly Endangered Vulnerable 1 Atlas; On the central coast Magenta Lilly Pilly occurs on This species is known to occur within relevant sub- This species is considered Not required Not required paniculatum PMST gravels, sands, silts and clays in riverside gallery regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. Given the highly unlikely to occur with the study rainforests and remnant littoral rainforest communities. modified nature of the area of impact, however no area. suitable habitat is likely to be present.

Thelymitra sp. Kangaloon Sun- _ Critically Predicted PMST The Kangaloon Sun-orchid is endemic to New South This species is not known to occur within relevant This species is considered Not required Not required Kangaloon orchid Endangered Wales, and is known from three locations near sub-regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. Given the unlikely to occur with the study Robertson in the Southern Highlands. The swamp highly modified nature of the area of impact no area. habitat in which the species occurs has an extent of suitable habitat is likely to be present. occurrence of 300 km2 and an area of occupancy of 10 km2. The three swamps are Butlers Swamp (0.125 km2), Stockyard Swamp (once known as Molly Morgan Swamp) (7 km2) and Wildes Meadow Swamp (3 km2), and are all located above what is known as the Kangaloon aquifer. The known areas of habitat occur within the Special Area under the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 and require permission from the Sydney Catchment Authority for access. Thesium australe Austral Toadflax Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found This species is known to occur within relevant sub- This species is considered Not required Not required in damp sites in association with Kangaroo Grass regions of the Sydney Metro CMA. Given the highly unlikely to occur with the study (Themeda australis ). modified nature of the area of impact, however no area. suitable habitat is likely to be present. Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

AVES Anthochaera phrygia Regent Endangered Endangered Predicted PMST Regent Honeyeaters inhabit woodlands that support a significantly high abundance and The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required Not Required or Xanthomyza Honeayeater species richness of bird species. These woodlands have significantly large numbers of mature relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to phrygia trees, high canopy cover and abundance of mistletoes. Every few years non-breeding flocks CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study are seen foraging in flowering coastal Swamp Mahogany and Spotted Gum forests, within the study area given the highly area. particularly on the central coast and occasionally on the upper north coast. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern Vulnerable _ 2 Atlas Favours permanent freshwater wetlands with tall, dense vegetation, particularly bullrushes The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - (Typha spp. ) and spikerushes (Eleoacharis spp. ). relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study within the study area given the highly area. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Calidris alba Sanderling Vulnerable _ 15 Atlas Regular summer migrant from Siberia and other Arctic breeding grounds to most of the The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - Australian coastline. It is uncommon to locally common, arriving from September and leaving relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to by May (some may overwinter in Australia). Sanderlings occur along the NSW coast. Coastal CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study beaches, tidal mudflats, bare open coastal lagoons or inland lakes are the species primary within the study area given the highly area. breeding and foraging habitat. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot Vulnerable _ 23 Atlas In NSW, the species has been recorded at scattered sites along the coast to about Narooma. The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - Coastal beaches, tidal mudflats, bare open coastal lagoons or inland lakes are the species relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to primary breeding and foraging habitat. CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study within the study area given the highly area. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Calyptorhynchus Glossy Black Vulnerable Endangered 2 Atlas Inhabits open forest and woodlands of the coast and the Great Dividing Range up to 1000 m This species is known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required lathami Cockatoo (only the South in which stands of she-oak species, particularly Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis ), Forest Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered unlikely to Australian sub- She-oak (A. torulosa ) or Drooping She-oak (A. verticillata ) occur. Metro CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occur within the study species) occurs within the study area given the highly area. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Charadrius Great Sand-plover Vulnerable _ 7 Atlas Almost entirely restricted to coastal areas in NSW, occurring mainly on sheltered sandy, shelly The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - leschenaultii or muddy beaches or estuaries with large intertidal mudflats or sandbanks. relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study within the study area given ther are no area. sheltered sandy, shelly or muddy beaches or estuaries

Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand-plover Vulnerable _ 46 Atlas Almost entirely coastal in NSW, favouring the beaches of sheltered bays, harbours and The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - estuaries with large intertidal sandflats or mudflats; occasionally occurs on sandy beaches, relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to coral reefs and rock platforms. CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study within the study area given ther are no area. sheltered sandy, shelly or muddy beaches or estuaries

Diomedea exulans Wandering Endangered Vulnerable 2 Altas; PMST Wandering albatross spend the majority of their time in flight, soaring over the southern This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required Albatross oceans. They breed on a number of islands just north of the Antarctic Circle: South Georgia within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to Island (belonging to the UK), Prince Edward and Marion Islands (South Africa), Crozet and majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study Kerguelen Islands (French Southern Territories) and Macquarie Island (Australia). breeding. area.

Diomedea Amsterdam _ Endangered Predicted PMST Amsterdam Albatrosses have not yet been positively identified within the Australian waters, This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required amsterdamensis Albatross there is certainly the potential for the occasional vagrant to enter Australian waters. The within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to species breeds in the Amsterdam Islands in the Indian Ocean. majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study breeding. area. Diomedea Antipodean Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST The majority of birds breed on Antipodes Island, with a small number of pairs breeding on This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required antipodensis Albatross Campbell Island. This species regularly occurs in small numbers off the NSW south coast from within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to Green Cape to Newcastle during winter where they feed on cuttlefish. majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study breeding. area. Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross Vulnerable Endangered Predicted PMST The at-sea distribution of this newly distinguished species is yet to be defined. Tristan This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required Albatrosses appear to wander widely from their sub-Antarctic breeding islands within the within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to South Atlantic Ocean to 35° S (Marchant and Higgins 1990; del Hoyo et al. 1992). They are majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study rarely observed in the Pacific or Indian Oceans. The only Australian record of this species is breeding. area. from a recapture off Wollongong (NSW) in September 1997.

Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross Vulnerable _ Predicted PMST This species is known only to breed on the Adams, Disappointment and Auckland Islands in This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required - the subantarctic Auckland Island group. This species regularly occurs off the NSW coast from within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to Green Cape to Newcastle. majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study breeding. area.

Epthianura albifrons, White-fronted Chat, Vulnerable, _ 1 Atlas Regularly observed in the saltmarsh of Newington Nature Reserve (with occasional sightings This species is known to occur in the This species is Required - Epthianura albifrons - White-fronted Chat Endangered from other parts of Sydney Olympic Park and in grassland on the northern bank of the Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered likely to endangered Population in the Population Parramatta River). Current estimates suggest this population consists of 8 individuals. Metro CMA. Given that species is known to occur with the study population Sydney Regularly observed in the saltmarsh and on the sandy shoreline of a small island of Towra forage in modified and weedy grassland area. Metropolitan Point Nature Reserve. This population is estimated to comprise 19-50 individuals. The species areas close to wetlands and shorelines, there Catchment is gregarious, usually found foraging on bare or grassy ground in wetland areas, singly or in is some potential for the species to forage Management pairs. within the study area. Authority Area

Gygis alba Campbell's Vulnerable _ 1 Atlas Occurs widely in tropical and subtropical seas and islands. Vagrant birds occur in coastal This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required - Albatross NSW waters, particularly after storm events. Primary habitat is marine areas. Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to occur within the study area. Haematopus Sooty Vulnerable _ 111 Atlas Sooty Oystercatchers are found around the entire Australian coast, including offshore islands, The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - fuliginosus Oystercatcher being most common in Bass Strait. Small numbers of the species are evenly distributed along relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to the NSW coast. Favours rocky headlands, rocky shelves, exposed reefs with rock pools, CMA. No suitable habitat is available in the occur within the study beaches and muddy estuaries. study area given they only forage within area. 50m of shore and prefer rocky intertidal shorelines and they breed on off-shore islands. Haematopus Pied Oystercatcher Vulnerable _ 139 Atlas The species is distributed around the entire Australian coastline, although it is most common in The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - longirostris coastal Tasmania and parts of Victoria, such as Corner Inlet. In NSW the species is thinly relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to scattered along the entire coast, with fewer than 200 breeding pairs estimated to occur in the CMA. No suitable habitat is available in the occur within the study State. study area given they only forage above high area. water mark on beaches, or sandbars or margins of estuaries or lagoons.

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot Endangered Endangered 1 Atlas; PMST Migrates to the Australian south-east mainland between March and October. On the mainland The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required Not Required they occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are abundant lerp relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to (from sap-sucking bugs) infestations. CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study within the study area given the highly area. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Vulnerable _ 4 Atlas The eastern form of this species breeds in northern Siberia before migrating southwards in The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - Sandpiper winter to Australia. In Australia, Broad-billed Sandpipers overwinter on the northern coast, Pittwater (part a) sub-regions of the Sydney considered unlikely to particularly in the north-west, with birds located occasionally on the southern coast. In NSW, Metro CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occur within the study the main site for the species is the Hunter River estuary, with birds occasionally reaching the occurs within the study area given the highly area. Shoalhaven estuary. Broad-billed Sandpipers favour sheltered parts of the coast such as modified and cleared nature of the area. estuarine sandflats and mudflats, harbours, embayments, lagoons, saltmarshes and reefs as feeding and roosting habitat. Occasionally, individuals may be recorded in sewage farms or within shallow freshwater lagoons. Broad-billed Sandpipers roost on banks on sheltered sand, shell or shingle beaches. Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Vulnerable _ 9 Atlas The Black-tailed Godwit is a migratory wading bird that breeds in Mongolia and Eastern The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - Siberia (Palaearctic) and flies to Australia for the southern summer, arriving in August and Pittwater (part b) sub-regions of the Sydney considered unlikely to leaving in March. In NSW, the it is most frequently recorded at Kooragang Island (Hunter River Metro CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occur within the study estuary), with occasional records elsewhere along the north and south coast. The species is occurs within the study area given the highly area. usually found in sheltered bays, estuaries and lagoons with large intertidal mudflats and/or modified and cleared nature of the area. sandflats.

Macronectes Southern Giant- Endangered Endangered 1 Atlas; PMST Over summer, the species nests in small colonies amongst open vegetation on Antarctic and This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required Not Required giganteus petrel subantarctic islands, including Macquarie and Heard Islands and in Australian Antarctic Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to territory. It is an opportunistic scavenger and predator, and scavenges from fishing vessels occur within the study and animal carcasses on land. It is also an active predator of cephalopods and euphausiids, area. as well as smaller birds (particularly penguins) both at land and at sea.

Macronectes halli Northern Giant- Vulnerable Vulnerable 1 Atlas; PMST Breeding in Australian territory is limited to Macquarie Island and occurs during spring and This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required Not Required petrel summer. Adults usually remain near the breeding colonies throughout the year (though some Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to do travel widely) while immature birds make long and poorly known circumpolar and trans- occur within the study oceanic movements. Hence most birds recorded in NSW coastal waters are immature birds. area.

Neochmia ruficauda Star Finch Endangered 1 Atlas No NSW species is listed as an endangered This species is Not Required Not Required considered unlikely to occur within the study area.

Ninox strenua Powerful Owl Vulnerable _ 5 Atlas The Powerful Owl inhabits a range of vegetation types, from woodland and open sclerophyll The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - forest to tall open wet forest and rainforest. In NSW, it is widely distributed throughout the relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered likely to eastern forests from the coast inland to tablelands. CMA. Suitable forage habitat occurs on the occur within the study edge of the proposed works in the southern area, but not to be study area where a large patch of vegetation impacted by the occurs. A number of records have been proposed works. recorded in this area. This species is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works, given no trees are likely to be removed.

Neophema Orange-bellied Critically Critically 1 Atlas; PMST On the mainland, the Orange-bellied Parrot spends winter mostly within 3 km of the coast in This species is known to occur in the This species is Required Required chrysogaster Parrot Endangered Endangered sheltered coastal habitats including bays, lagoons, estuaries, coastal dunes and saltmarshes. Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered likely to The species also inhabits small islands and peninsulas and occasionally saltworks and golf Metro CMA. Given that species is known to occur with the study courses. Birds forage in low samphire herbland or taller coastal shrubland. species can be forage in weedy, modified landscapes there area. found foraging in weedy areas associated with these coastal habitats or even in totally is some potential for the species to forage modified landscapes such as pastures, seed crops and golf courses. within the study area.

Pezoporus wallicus Eastern Ground Vulnerable 2 Atlas The eastern subspecies (wallicus ) inhabits south-eastern Australia from southern Queensland This species is known to occur in the This species is Not Required - wallicus Parrot through NSW to western Victoria. In NSW populations have declined and contracted to Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered unlikely to islands of coastal or subcoastal heathland and sedgeland habitats. The Ground Parrot occurs Metro CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occur within the study in high rainfall coastal and near coastal low heathlands and sedgelands, generally below one occurs within the study area given the highly area. metre in height and very dense (up to 90% projected foliage cover). These habitats provide a modified and cleared nature of the area. high abundance and diversity of food, adequate cover and suitable roosting and nesting opportunities for the Ground Parrot, which spends most of its time on or near the ground

Pterodroma leucoptera Gould's Petrel Vulnerable Endangered Predicted PMST Breeds on both Cabbage Tree Island, 1.4 km offshore from Port Stephens and on nearby This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required Not Required leucoptera Boondelbah island. The range and feeding areas of non-breeding Petrels are unknown. Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to occur within the study area. Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

Pterodroma neglecta Kermadec Petrel Vulnerable Vulnerable 1 Altas; PMST Breeds on islands across the South Pacific. In Australia it breeds on Ball's Pyramid and Phillip This species is known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required neglecta Island (near Norfolk Island). Pittwater (part a) sub-region of the Sydney considered unlikely to Vagrant birds occur in coastal NSW waters, particularly after storm events. Metro CMA. occur within the study area.

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Endangered Vulnerable Predicted PMST The Australian Painted Snipe inhabits many different types of shallow, brackish or freshwater No known records of this species occur This species is Not Required Not Required Snipe terrestrial wetlands, especially temporary ones, which have muddy margins and small, low- within the Sydney region. It is unlikely that considered unlikely to lying islands. Suitable wetlands usually support a mosaic of low, patchy vegetation, as well as the study area provides suitable wetland occur within the study lignum and canegrass. habitat for the species. area.

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail Vulnerable _ 2 Atlas The Diamond Firetail is endemic to south-eastern Australia, extending from central The species is known to occur in all of the This species is Not Required - Queensland to the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. Feeds exclusively on the ground, on relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to ripe and partly-ripe grass and herb seeds and green leaves, and on insects (especially in the CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study breeding season). Found in grassy eucalypt woodlands, including Box-Gum Woodlands and within the study area given the highly area. Snow Gum Eucalyptus pauciflora Woodlands. modified and cleared nature of the area. Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross _ Endangered Predicted PMST During the breeding season, the highest concentrations of Buller's Albatrosses occur over the This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required shelf and slope waters off Southern New Zealand. Individuals have been observed in within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to Australian waters south of Coff's Harbour, around Tasmania, and west to the Eyre Peninsula. majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study breeding. area. Thalassarche cauta Shy Albatross Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST This species is circumpolar in distribution, occurring widely in the southern oceans. Islands off This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required Not Required Australia and New Zealand provide breeding habitat. In Australian waters, the Shy Albatross Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to occurs along the east coast from Stradbroke Island in Queensland along the entire south occur within the study coast of the continent to Carnarvon in Western Australia. Although uncommon north of area. Sydney, the species is commonly recorded off southeast NSW. The species spends the majority of its time at sea but will occasionally visit continental shelf waters, in bays and harbours.

Thalassarche salvini, Salvin's Albatross _ Vulnerable Predicted PMST This species is abundant throughout the year on all continental shelf areas around New This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required formerly Diomedea Zealand. It roams widely in winter, moving eastwards across the South Pacific to the Humboldt within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to cauta salvini Current in the waters off the west coast of South America (Chile and Peru). majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study breeding. area. Thalassarche steadi White-capped _ Vulnerable Predicted PMST It is difficult to know the precise distribution of this newly recognised species due to the This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required Albatross difficulties of distinguishing it at sea from Shy Albatrosses and the absence of specific banding within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to studies. Nonetheless, White-capped Albatrosses are the most abundant albatross in all New majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study Zealand shelf waters, except on the Chatham Rise and Bounty Platform (displaced by Salvin's breeding. area. Albatross) and the Campbell Shelf (displaced by Campbell Albatross). The adults are present in New Zealand and south-east Australian waters throughout the year whilst immatures are rare in New Zealand waters, being more common off south-east Australia.

Thalassarche Black-browed Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted Altas; PMST The Black-browed Albatross has a circumpolar range over the southern oceans, and are seen This species is only known to occur the This species is Not Required Not Required melanophris Albatross off the southern Australian coast mainly during winter. This species migrates to waters off the Sydney marine zone. considered unlikely to continental shelf from approximately May to November and is regularly recorded off the NSW occur within the study coast during this period. area.

Thalassarche Campbell's _ Vulnerable Predicted PMST They breed only on sub-Antarctic Campbell Island, south of New Zealand. Throughout the This species is not likely to use the habitat This species is Not Required Not Required impavida Albatross breeding season, breeding adults are generally found over the shelf waters surrounding New within the study area given they spent the considered unlikely to Zealand, whereas non-breeding birds often forage over the continental slopes around majority of there life at sea, except when occur within the study Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. breeding. area.

Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper _ Vulnerable 9 Atlas A rare migrant to the eastern and southern Australian coasts, being most common in northern This species is known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required Australia, and extending its distribution south to the NSW coast in the east. The two main sites relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to for the species in NSW are the Richmond River estuary and the Hunter River estuary. In CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occurs occur within the study Australia, has been recorded on coastal mudflats, lagoons, creeks and estuaries. within the study area given the highly area. modified and cleared nature of the area.

Amphibians Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet Vulnerable _ 36 Atlas Wallum Froglets are found only in acid paperbark swamps and sedge swamps of the coastal This species is known to occur in the This species is Not Required - ‘wallum’ country. The species is a late winter breeder. Males call in choruses from within relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to sedge tussocks or at the water edge. CMA. However the known populations are occur within the study restricted to Kurnell Peninsula within Botany area. Bay National Park and the margins of Botany Bay on northern side of the harbour. No suitable habitat occurs directly within the study area given the highly modified and cleared nature of the area.

Heleioporus Giant Burrowing Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST The Giant Burrowing Frog is distributed in south eastern NSW and Victoria, and appears to This species is known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required australiacus Frog exist as two distinct populations: a northern population largely confined to the sandstone Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered unlikely to geology of the Sydney Basin and extending as far south as Ulladulla. Breeding habitat of this Metro CMA. No suitable foraging habitat occur within the study species is generally soaks or pools within first or second order streams. They are also occurs within the study area given the highly area. commonly recorded from 'hanging swamp' seepage lines and where small pools form from the modified and cleared nature of the area. collected water. Litoria aurea Green and Golden Endangered Vulnerable 54 Altas; PMST Since 1990 there have been approximately 50 recorded locations in NSW, most of which are This species is known to occur in the This species is Required Required Bell Frog small, coastal, or near coastal populations. These locations occur over the species’ former relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro considered likely to range, however they are widely separated and isolated. Large populations in NSW are located CMA. Numerous records of this species occur with the study around the metropolitan areas of Sydney. Inhabits marshes, dams and stream-sides, occur in and around the southern study area. area. particularly those containing bullrushes (Typha spp. ) or spikerushes (Eleocharis spp. ). Given that species will forage in modified Optimum habitat includes water-bodies that are unshaded, free of predatory fish such as pastures up to 500m from breeding habitat, Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki ), have a grassy area nearby and diurnal sheltering sites there is some potential for this species to use available. Some sites, particularly in the Greater Sydney region occur in highly disturbed the areas of impact along the pipeline areas.The species will forage amongst emergent aquatic or riparian vegetation and amongst upgrade. vegetation, fallen timber adjacent to and within 500m of breeding habitat, including grassland, cropland and modified pastures.

Litoria littlejohni Little John's Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST The majority of records are from within the Sydney Basin Bioregion with only scattered records This species is not known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required Treefrog south to the Victorian border. This species breeds in the upper reaches of permanent streams relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to and in perched swamps. Non-breeding habitat is heath based forests and woodlands where it CMA. occur within the study shelters under leaf litter and low vegetation, and hunts for invertebrate prey either in shrubs or area. on the ground.

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Endangered Vulnerable Predicted PMST This species is found mostly amongst emergent vegetation including Typha sp. (bullrush), This species is not known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required Frog Phragmites sp. (reeds) and Eleocharis sp. (sedges), in or at the edges of still or slow-flowing relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to water bodies such as lagoons, swamps, lakes, ponds and farm dams. The closest population CMA. occur within the study was the southern and central tablelands, however the species is thought to be extinct in these area. areas now.

Mammals Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Roosts in caves (near their entrances), crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in the disused, This species is not known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required Bat bottle-shaped mud nests of the Fairy Martin (Hirundo ariel ), frequenting low to mid-elevation relevant sub-regions of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to dry open forest and woodland close to these features. Found mainly in areas with extensive CMA. occur within the study cliffs and caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland south to Bungonia in the NSW Southern area. Highlands

Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll Vulnerable Endangered Predicted PMST The range of the Spotted-tailed Quoll has contracted considerably since European settlement. This species is known to occur within the This species is Not Required Not Required It is now found on the east coast of NSW. Mostly nocturnal, although will hunt during the day; Pittwater (part b) sub-region of the Sydney considered unlikely to spends most of the time on the ground, although also an excellent climber and may raid Metro CMA. Given that the species primary occur within the study possum and glider dens and prey on roosting birds. prey includes arboreal fauna, it is unlikely area. Recorded across a range of habitat types, including rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal that the species hunting habitat will be heath and inland riparian forest, from the sub-alpine zone to the coastline. impacted by the proposed works.

Miniopterus Eastern Bentwing Vulnerable _ 30 Atlas Eastern Bent-wing Bats occur along the east and north-west coasts of Australia. Caves are This species is known to occur in the This species is unlikely Not Required - schreibersii Bat the primary roosting habitat, but also use derelict mines, storm-water tunnels, buildings and relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro to be impacted by the oceanensis other man-made structures. CMA. Given that there will be no trees or proposed works structures removed during the proposed works this species is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works. Appendix B-5 FAUNA

TSC/ FM Act EPBC Act Study Area Distribution and Habitat Likelihood based on Assessment of Significant Scientific Name Common Name Count Source Habitat Requirements Status Status Suitability habitat suitability Significance Impact Cirteria

Myotis macropus Southern Myotis, Vulnerable _ 2 Atlas The Large-footed Myotis is found in the coastal band from the north-west of Australia, across This species is known to occur in the This species is Not Required - Large-footed Mytois the top-end and south to western Victoria. Generally roost in groups of 10 - 15 close to water relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro considered unlikely to in caves, mine shafts, hollow-bearing trees, storm water channels, buildings, under bridges CMA. Given that there will be no trees or occur within the study and in dense foliage. They forage over streams and pools catching insects and small fish by structures removed during the proposed area. raking their feet across the water surface. works this species is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works. Furthermore no streams occur directly within the study area.

Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock Endangered Vulnerable Predicted PMST Occupy rocky escarpments, outcrops and cliffs with a preference for complex structures with This species is not known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required Wallaby fissures, caves and ledges, often facing north. Sydney Basin area. considered unlikely to occur within the study area. Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed Vulnerable Vulnerable Predicted PMST Inhabits coastal heaths and dry and wet sclerophyll forests. Dense understorey with This species is not known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required Potoroo occasional open areas is an essential part of habitat, and may consist of grass-trees, sedges, Sydney Basin area. considered unlikely to ferns or heath, or of low shrubs of tea-trees or melaleucas. A sandy loam soil is also a occur within the study common feature. area. Pseudomys New Holland _ Vulnerable Predicted PMST Across the species’ range the New Holland Mouse is known to inhabit open heathlands, open This species is not known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required novaehollandiae Mouse woodlands with a heathland understorey and vegetated sand dunes. The New Holland Mouse Sydney Basin area. considered unlikely to has a fragmented distribution across Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. occur within the study In 2006 there were known to be 6 - 8 metapopulations of the species area.

Pteropus Grey-headed Flying Vulnerable Vulnerable 47 Atlas; PMST Grey-headed Flying-foxes are found within 200 km of the eastern coast of Australia, from This species is known to occur in the This species is unlikely Not Required Not Required poliocephalus Fox Bundaberg in Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria. Occur in subtropical and temperate relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro to be impacted by the rainforests, tall sclerophyll forests and woodlands, heaths and swamps as well as urban CMA. Given that there will be no feed trees proposed works gardens and cultivated fruit crops. Roosting camps are generally located within 20 km of a removed during the proposed works this regular food source and are commonly found in gullies, close to water, in vegetation with a species is unlikely to be impacted by the dense canopy. proposed works.

Saccolaimus Yellow-sheath- Vulnerable _ 1 Atlas The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat is a wide-ranging species found across northern and eastern This species is known to occur in the This species is unlikely Not Required - flaviventris tailed Bat Australia. Roosts singly or in groups of up to six, in tree hollows and buildings; in treeless relevant sub-region of the Sydney Metro to be impacted by the areas they are known to utilise mammal burrows. When foraging for insects, flies high and fast CMA. Given that there will be feed trees proposed works over the forest canopy, but lower in more open country. removed during the proposed works this species is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works. Reptiles Hoplocephalus Broad-headed Endangered Vulnerable Predicted PMST The Broad-headed Snake is largely confined to Triassic and Permian sandstones, including This species is not known to occur in the This species is Not Required Not Required bungaroides Snake the Hawkesbury, Narrabeen and Shoalhaven groups, within the coast and ranges in an area relevant sections of the sub-regions of the considered unlikely to within approximately 250 km of Sydney. Shelters in rock crevices and under flat sandstone Sydney Metro CMA. Given that this species occur within the study rocks on exposed cliff edges during autumn, winter and spring. is restricted to the northern portion of the area. Pittwater (part b) sub-region.

Aquatic Invertebrates

Austrocordulia leonardi Sydney hawk Endangered _ _ DII TFAS The Sydney hawk dragonfly has a very restricted distribution. The known distribution of the This species is known to occur in the This species is unlikely Not Required _ dragonfly (FM Act) species includes three locations in a small area south of Sydney, from Audley to Picton. The sourthern section of the Sydney Metro CMA to be impacted by the species is known from the Hawkesbury-Nepean, Georges River, Port Hacking and Karuah around Audley and Picton. No suitable proposed works drainages. The Sydney hawk dragonfly has specific habitat requirements, and has only ever habitat is available within the study area. been collected from deep and shady riverine pools with cooler water. Larvae are found under rocks where they co-exist with Austrocordulia refracta .

Archaeophya adamsi Adam's emerald Endangered _ _ DII TFAS Adam’s emerald dragonflies are one of Australia’s rarest dragonflies. Only five adults have This species is known to occur in the the This species is unlikely Not Required - dragonfly (FM Act) ever been collected, and the species is only known from a few sites in the greater Sydney Sydney Metro CMA. No suitable habitat is to be impacted by the region. Larvae have been found in small creeks with gravel or sandy bottoms, in narrow, available within the study area. proposed works shaded riffle zones with moss and rich riparian vegetation. Adult dragonflies generally fly away from the water to mature before returning to breed. Males congregate at breeding sites and often guard a territory. Females probably lay their eggs into the water. Appendix B6

Assessments of Significance Appendix B-6 NSW Asessments of Significance (NSW)

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the White-fronted Chat (Epthianura Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria Sunshine Wattle (Acacia terminalis New South Wales North Coast, Sydney albifrons)- chrysogast er )- aurea )- subsp. terminalis )- Basin and South East Corner TS, Pop TS TS TS Bioregions - TEC How is the Proposal likely to affect the This species only breeds in Tasmania, as lifecycle of a threatened species and/or such the lifecycle of the species is unlikely population? to be affect by the Project. No specimens were observed during No individuals were observed during No individuals were observed during survey; neither are they known to occur survey; neither are they known to occur survey; neither are they known to occur within the footprint, the closest records are a) displaces or disturbs threatened within the footprint. Therefore the local as above. within the footprint. Therefore the local located approximately 0.5km to the south N/A species and/or populations; population is not likely to be displaced or population is not likely to be displaced or of the Banksmeadow Terminal. Therefore disturbed. disturbed. the local population is not likely to be displaced or disturbed. The species breeds and nests in Given no specimens were observed within permanent water bodies. The Project may the footprint, the species is not likely to indirectly impact adjacent wetlands in persists within the seed bank based on the The species nests in 'open-cup' nests built Marton park through the release of existing disturbances and that no changes b) disrupts the breeding cycle; in low vegetation. No mid-storey or canopy as above. contaminated soils or pollutant run-off N/A to existing fire and water flow regimes are will be removed by the Project. during storm events. However the lifecycle likely to be created by the Project, the of the species is unlikely to be affected by breeding cycle of the species is unlikely to these impacts if the mitigation measures be affected. outlined within the EA are adopted. The species is not likely to persist within c) disturbs the dormancy period; N/A N/A N/A the seed bank based on the existing N/A disturbances. The species inhabits marshes, dams and Species shelters in low vegetation. The stream-sides, particularly those containing species nests in 'open-cup' nests built in bullrushes (Typha spp.) or spikerushes d) disrupts roosting behaviour; as above. N/A N/A low vegetation. No mid-storey or canopy (Eleocharis spp.) This type of habitat will will be removed by the Project. not be impacted by the Project.

The species will forage within 500m of breeding habitat, including grassland, Foraging patterns are unlikely to be cropland and modified pastures. Although impacted given the species feeds within e) changes foraging behaviour as above. the Project will temporary impacted N/A N/A wetlands and sometimes modified weedy potential foraging habitat within the right of grasslands. way, however post construction this area would be returned to its original state. Existing populations of this species on the Kurnell Peninsula are already isolated Given the existing disturbances in the from other populations to the north and ecological study area, the Project is f) affects migration and dispersal ability Species is not known to migrate. as above. south. The Project is unlikely to alter or N/A unlikely to affect the species seed aggravate the current isolation of dispersal and establishment abilities. populations within the ecological study area. Appendix B-6 NSW Asessments of Significance (NSW)

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the White-fronted Chat (Epthianura Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria Sunshine Wattle (Acacia terminalis New South Wales North Coast, Sydney albifrons)- chrysogast er )- aurea )- subsp. terminalis )- Basin and South East Corner TS, Pop TS TS TS Bioregions - TEC No specimens were observed within the footprint and the Project is not considered g) disrupts pollination cycle; N/A N/A N/A N/A likely to disrupt the pollination cycle of individuals within the locality. h) disturbs seed bank; N/A N/A N/A as above. N/A Given the existing disturbances in the ecological study area, the Project is i) disrupts recruitment (i.e. germination N/A N/A N/A unlikely to affect the species seed N/A and establishment of plants; and dispersal, germination and establishment abilities. j) affects the interaction between Species is not associated with any Species is not associated with any The Project is not likely to affect the threatened species and other species in Species is not associated with any symbiotic relationships with other species symbiotic relationships with other species interaction of pollinators and local N/A the community (e.g. pollinators, host symbiotic relationships with other species. and is not known as a keystone species. and is not known as a keystone species. populations of the species. species, mychorrizal associations). How is the proposal likely to affect the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community?

The Project may indirectly impact The Project may indirectly impact adjacent The Project may indirectly impact adjacent The Project may indirectly impact adjacent disturbed remnants of this community wetlands in Marton park through the wetlands in Marton park through the wetlands in Marton park through the within Marton park through the release of release of contaminated soils or pollutant release of contaminated soils or pollutant release of contaminated soils or pollutant contaminated soils or pollutant run-off a) disturbs any permanent, semi- run-off during storm events. If mitigation run-off during storm events. If mitigation run-off during storm events. If mitigation No water bodies are associated with during storm events. If mitigation permanent or ephermeral water bodies; measures oulined within this EA are measures outlined within this EA are measures outlined within this EA are known local populations of the species. measures outlined within this EA are adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated and this species habitat is unlikely to be and this species foraging habitat is unlikely and this species breeding/shelter habitat is and available habitat within this TEC affected. to be affected. unlikely to be affected. would be maintained in its current state. The Project may degrade soil quality if The Project may degrade soil quality if The Project may degrade soil quality if The Project may degrade soil quality if damage occurs to the pipelines that would damage occurs to the pipelines that would damage occurs to the pipelines that would damage occurs to the pipelines that would Further decline in soil quality is not be removed or through the release of be removed or through the release of be removed or through the release of be removed or through the release of expected in the areas close to known contaminated soils or pollutant run-off contaminated soils or pollutant run-off contaminated soils or pollutant run-off contaminated soils or pollutant run-off specimens around the Banksmeadow b) degrades soil quality; during storm events. If mitigation during storm events. If mitigation during storm events. If mitigation during storm events. If mitigation Terminal given the proposed works for this measures outlined within this EA are measures outlined within this EA are measures outlined within this EA are measures outlined within this EA are area and the existing disturbances in the adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated adopted this impact would be ameliorated area. and this species habitat is unlikely to be and this species foraging habitat is unlikely and this species habitat is unlikely to be and habitat within this TEC is unlikely to affected. to be affected. affected. be affected. The Project would only remove a small The Project would only remove a small The Project would only remove a small amount of ground vegetation in the amount of ground vegetation in the amount of ground vegetation in the modified pasture/exotic community. This modified pasture/exotic community. This modified pasture/exotic community. This No native vegetation will be removed in community is unlikely to be dramatically community is unlikely to be dramatically community is unlikely to be dramatically No vegetation will be removed from this c) clears or modifies native vegetation; the footprint within the Banksmeadow modified post construction when soils are modified post construction when soils are modified post construction when soils are TEC during Project works. Terminal. reinstated and as such is unlikely to affect reinstated and as such is unlikely to affect reinstated and as such is unlikely to affect this species foraging habitat within the potential foraging habitat within the potential foraging habitat within the locality. locality. locality. Appendix B-6 NSW Asessments of Significance (NSW)

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the White-fronted Chat (Epthianura Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria Sunshine Wattle (Acacia terminalis New South Wales North Coast, Sydney albifrons)- chrysogast er )- aurea )- subsp. terminalis )- Basin and South East Corner TS, Pop TS TS TS Bioregions - TEC The Project may introduce and/or The Project may introduce and/or The Project may introduce and/or The Project may introduce and/or The Project may introduce and/or aggravate weed species within the aggravate weed species within the aggravate weed species within the aggravate weed species within the aggravate weed species within the TEC d) introduces weeds, vermin or feral ecological study area, however, if weed ecological study area, however, if weed ecological study area, however, if weed ecological study area, however, if weed adjacent to the footprint, however, if weed species or provides conditions for them to management protocols are adopted this management protocols are adopted this management protocols are adopted this management protocols are adopted this management protocols are adopted this increase and/or spread; impact will be ameliorated and the species impact will be ameliorated and the species impact will be ameliorated and the species impact will be ameliorated and the species impact will be ameliorated and the habitat is unlikely to be affected. habitat is unlikely to be affected. habitat is unlikely to be affected. habitat is unlikely to be affected. community is unlikely to be affected. e) removes or disturbs key habitat features No key habitat features will be removed by No key habitat features will be removed by No key habitat features will be removed by No key habitat features will be removed by No key habitat features will be removed by such as trees with hollows, caves and rock the Project. the Project. the Project. the Project. the Project. crevices, foraging habitat; The footprint area in its current state The footprint area in its current state The footprint area in its current state The footprint area in its current state f) affects natural revegetation and prevents the natural regeneration of the prevents the natural regeneration of the prevents the natural regeneration of the prevents the natural regeneration of the This community does not occur within the recolonisation of existing species following shrub and canopy layer given these areas shrub and canopy layer given these areas shrub and canopy layer given these areas shrub and canopy layer given these areas footprint of the Project. disturbances; and are maintained for existing works. are maintained for existing works. are maintained for existing works. are maintained for existing works. Existing populations of this species on the Only a few records of the species have The Towra point population of the species Kurnell Peninsula are already isolated Does the proposal affect and been noted within NSW. It is unknown This species is only known from the is isolated from all other populations by from other populations to the north and The Sydney Metro CMA area does not threatened species or populations that whether the species historically occurred Sydney metro CMA area. Existing records over 25km. This isolation already exists south. The Project is unlikely to alter or represent the limit of this communities are at the limit of its known more regularly within the region. are highly sporadic. The Project is not and would not be exacerbated by the aggravate the current isolation of known distribution. distribution? Irrespective, the Project is unlikely to affect likely to affect any known specimens. Project works. populations within the ecological study current species distribution. area. How is the proposal likely to affect current disturbance regimes? The footprint already exists as a modified The footprint already exists as a modified The footprint already exists as a modified The footprint already exists as a modified environment and is unlikely to be impacted environment and is unlikely to be impacted environment and is unlikely to be impacted environment and is unlikely to be impacted The Project will not affect current fire a) modifies the intensity and frequency of by fires given the lack of leaf litter, shrub by fires given the lack of leaf litter, shrub by fires given the lack of leaf litter, shrub by fires given the lack of leaf litter, shrub intensity or frequency of fire within the fires; and and canopy layer, coarse woody debris and canopy layer, coarse woody debris and canopy layer, coarse woody debris and canopy layer, coarse woody debris community given it occurs outside of the etc. The Project is unlikely to impact etc. The Project is unlikely to impact etc. The Project is unlikely to impact etc. The Project is unlikely to impact footprint. natural fire events. natural fire events. natural fire events. natural fire events. The ecological study area exists as an The ecological study area exists as an The ecological study area exists as an The ecological study area exists as an The ecological study area and sections of artificial or altered flood/flow regime. The artificial or altered flood/flow regime. The artificial or altered flood/flow regime. The artificial or altered flood/flow regime. The this community contain artificial or altered b) modifies flooding flows. Project is unlikely to modify the existing Project is unlikely to modify the existing Project is unlikely to modify the existing Project is unlikely to modify the existing flood/flow regimes. The Project is unlikely water flow regime. water flow regime. water flow regime. water flow regime. to modify the existing water flow regime. How is the proposal likely to affect habitat connectivity? The Towra point population of the species Within the ecological study area this is isolated from all other populations by The species is highly mobile and as such Existing populations are already isolated. community exists as an isolated remnant a) creates a barrier to fauna movement; over 25km. This isolation already exists fauna movement for this species is The Project is unlikely to create further N/A given it is surrounded by residential roads and would not be exacerbated by the unlikely to be impacted by the Project. barriers to fauna movement. and the Kurnell Refinery. This isolation Project works. would not be aggravated by the Project. b) removes remnant vegetation or wildlife No remnant vegetation will be removed No remnant vegetation will be removed No remnant vegetation will be removed No remnant vegetation will be removed No remnant vegetation will be removed corridors; and c) modifies remnant vegetation or wildlife as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. corridors. Appendix B-6 NSW Asessments of Significance (NSW)

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the White-fronted Chat (Epthianura Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria Sunshine Wattle (Acacia terminalis New South Wales North Coast, Sydney albifrons)- chrysogast er )- aurea )- subsp. terminalis )- Basin and South East Corner TS, Pop TS TS TS Bioregions - TEC No critical habitat is registered for this No critical habitat is registered for this No critical habitat is registered for this No critical habitat is registered for this No critical habitat is registered for this How is the proposal likely to affect species, as such these questions are not species, as such these questions are not species, as such these questions are not species, as such these questions are not species, as such these questions are not critical habitat? applicable. applicable. applicable. applicable. applicable. a) removes or modifies key habitat as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. features; b) affects natural revegetation or recolonisation of existing species following as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. disturbances; c) introduces weeds, vermin or feral as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. species; d) generates or disposes of solid, liquid or as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. gaseous waste; and e) uses pesticides, herbicides, other as above. as above. as above. as above. as above. chemicals.

Magnitude of Impact Low Low Potential None Potential Significance of Impact Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Appendix B7

Significant Impact Criteria

1 Appendix B7 - Significant Impact Criteria

1.1 Fauna

1.1.1 Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

a) lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

All known populations of Litoria aurea (Vulnerable, EPBC Act; Vulnerable, TSC Act) are considered to be ‘important populations’ (DEWHA 2009a). The Project will require disturbance to land within the known range of Litoria aurea, however no works will be undertaken within close proximity to locations in which the species has been recorded previously. All works will be undertaken in areas that may represent potential foraging habitat for the species. Several indirect impacts may influence the known breeding and nesting habitat in Marton Park wetlands. Assuming mitigation measures are adopted, the Project will not lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of this species.

b) reduce the area of occupancy of the species

Litoria aurea occurs in coastal lowland areas in New South Wales. Given the low severity of potential impacts, limited size of the Project works and lack of records of this species within the footprint, it is considered unlikely that the Project would reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of this species.

c) fragment an existing population into two or more populations

The Project works will be contained in discreet areas of potential foraging habitat only. All known records are contained within the wetland reserves of Marton Park and Towra Point Reserve to the south and south west. Given that these works will be located outside of the known population’s primary habitat, it is considered unlikely that the Project would fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

d) adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Not applicable. No Critical habitat is listed on the register of Critical Habitat kept by the Director-General, DECCW or DII within the project area. To date, no critical habitat has been declared for this species.

e) disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

Optimum breeding habitat for the species includes water-bodies that are unshaded, and have a grassy area nearby (DEC 2005a). No Project works will be carried out within the Marton Park wetlands which contain the closest known records of the species (Sutherland Shire Council 2009a). All works will be located within potential foraging habitat for the species. As long as the mitigation measures are adopted, no indirect are likely to influence or disrupt the breeding cycle of populations with the adjacent wetlands.

f) modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Litoria aurea is typically found in water-bodies that are unshaded, and have a grassy area nearby. Water bodies that only contain water periodically (that is, ephemeral water bodies) are important habitat for the green and golden bell frog, as their flooding can trigger breeding or provide habitat ‘stepping stones’ for dispersal between periodically disconnected water bodies. Ephemeral water bodies are also less likely to be inhabited by mosquito fish. (DEWHA, 2009). The Project will require the removal of some vegetation that would constitute foraging habitat for the species. However, given the Project will not directly impact optimal breeding, nesting and shelter habitat for the species and assuming mitigation measures are adopted, it is considered unlikely that the Project would result in the modification or removal of habitat to the extent that the species would decline. g) result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat

DEWHA (2009a) or DEC (2005a) do not list any invasive species known to be harmful to Litoria aurea. h) introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

A fungal pathogen known as Frog Chytrid Fungus is known to threaten Litoria aurea. This pathogen is also known to occur within the Sydney Metro CMA area. However, as long as wash down protocols that are consistent with the hygiene protocol for frogs (DECC, 2008) is adopted the Project is considered unlikely to introduce disease that may cause the decline of the species. i) interfere with the recovery of the species.

There is a Draft Recovery Plan Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea (DEC 2005). The primary objectives of the recovery plan that are of relevance to the Project include: • establish hygiene protocols to minimise the inadvertent spread of fungal pathogens from site to site; • prevent the use of herbicides and other weed-control measures; and • manage degradation to wetlands through the management of sedimentation and pollutant run-off.

Although the Project will require the removal of some areas of foraging habitat for this species, and may indirectly impact important habitat through indirect impacts (Chapter 8 of the EA), as long as the mitigation measures are adopted (Chapter 8 of the EA) to limit the potential impact the Project is not likely to interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Conclusion

The significant impact criteria assessment concludes that the proposal is not likely to significantly impact Litoria aurea. As such, a referral to the Minister is not required. A number of measures are recommended in Chapter 8 of the EA to ameliorate the degree of impact to ensure that biodiversity values within the Project area are maintained or improved.

References

DEC 2005, Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea (Lesson 1829) Recovery Plan, Department of Environment and Conservation @ http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/recoveryplanGreenGoldBellFrogDraft.pd f Accessed 07/01/2011 DEC 2005a, Green and Golden Bell Frog – profile http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile Accessed 07/01/2011. DECC 2008, Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs, Department of Environment and Climate Change @ http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/hyprfrog.pdf Accessed 07/01/2011 DEWHA 2009, EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Commonwealth of Australia. DEWHA 2009a, Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), Commonwealth of Australia, http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/litoria-aurea-policy.pdf Accessed 07/01/2011

1.1.2 Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

a) lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population One record of the species Neophema chrysogaster (Critically Endangered, EPBC Act; Critically Endangered, TSC Act) is located approximately 3.5km to the east of the Banksmeadow Terminal. Given this species is highly mobile and is known to forage in weedy grasslands close to sheltered bays, potential foraging habitat exists within the footprint of the Project (particularly along the right of way for the KBL pipeline). The Project may result in the clearing of small amount of potential foraging habitat. Given the existing condition of the right of way and other grassy areas within the vicinity of the Project as well as the low severity of the potential impacts, it is considered unlikely that the Project will lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population of Neophema chrysogaster.

b) reduce the area of occupancy of the species

Neophema chrysogaster breeds in the south-west of Tasmania and migrates in autumn to spend the winter on the mainland coast of south-eastern South Australia and southern Victoria. There are occasional reports from NSW, with the most recent records from Shellharbour and Maroubra in May 2003 (DEC 2005). Given the existing condition of the weedy grasslands in the footprint, the limited records of the species in NSW, and that the species breeds in Tasmania only it is considered unlikely that works associated with the Project would further reduce the area of occupancy of Neophema chrysogaster.

c) fragment an existing population into two or more populations

Given the majority of the species records in NSW are historical and only a few recent records have been made around Sydney, it is unlikely that a large population of the species occurs in the Sydney metro CMA area. Given this, it is considered unlikely that any the Project would result in the fragmentation of an existing population into two or more populations.

d) adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Not applicable. No Critical habitat is listed on the register of Critical Habitat kept by the Director-General, DECCW or DII within the project area. To date, no critical habitat has been declared for this species within NSW.

e) disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

Given the species breeds in Tasmania only, the Project will not disrupt the breeding cycle of Neophema chrysogaster that occur in the Sydney Metro CMA area.

f) modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline Given the existing condition of the weedy grasslands within the footprint, the low severity of the potential impacts to habitat, the limited records of Neophema chrysogaster, and the migratory behaviour of the species, it is considered unlikely that works associated with the Project would modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. g) result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat

The species is known to be threatened by invasive species such as foxes, wild dogs and feral cats. Foxes, feral cats and domestic cats are likely to be present in the ecological study area, however the Project is not likely to aggravate populations of these invasive species. Further, the limited records of the species in the area, it is considered unlikely that the Project would result in invasive species that are harmful to Neophema chrysogaster becoming further established in the species habitat. h) introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

Neophema chrysogaster is known to be susceptible to Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Psittacine Circoviral which is an infectious and potentially fatal disease that is common in Australian (DEH, 2005). Whilst the disease is known to spread in the wild, the Project is unlikely to exacerbate the spread of the disease. The Project is considered unlikely to introduce any diseases that may cause Neophema chrysogaster to decline. i) interfere with the recovery of the species.

Orange Bellied Parrot Team (2006) have released a recovery plan which sets out six specific recovery actions for Neophema chrysogaster. The following is relevant to the current project: • Habitat enhancement and protection.

Some potential foraging habitat exists for the species in the footprint. Given the existing disturbances in the footprint and the small discreet nature of the Project works, it is considered unlikely that the Project would have a significant impact on any known populations or their habtiat of Neophema chrysogaster. Conclusion

The significant impact criteria assessment concludes that the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact Neophema chrysogaster. As such, a referral to the Minister has not been completed. A number of measures are recommended in Chapter 8 of the EA to ameliorate the degree of impact to ensure that biodiversity values within the ecological study area are maintained or improved.

References DEC 2005a, Orange-bellied Parrot– profile http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile Accessed 07/01/2011. DEH 2005, Threat Abatement Plan for Beak and Feather Disease Affecting Endangered Species, Department of Environment and Heritage, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/beak-feather- tap.pdf Accessed 07/01/11.

DEWHA 2009, EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Commonwealth of Australia. Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team (2006), National Recovery Plan for the Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster), Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW), Hobart.

1.2 Flora

1.2.1 Sunshine Wattle (Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis) An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

a) lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species A number of records of specimens of Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis (Vulnerable, EPBC Act; Vulnerable, TSC Act) are located to close vicinity to the Banksmeadow Terminal. Although the species is known to occur in disturbed areas, no individuals were identified in areas targeted in and around the footprint areas. Given this, it is unlikely that Project will have an lead to the long-term decrease in the size of important population of the species in the locality.

b) reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

The known locations of this species have been mapped on the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (Figure 8-2a). The Project avoids all mapped locations. Since A.t.terminalis was not located during field surveys conducted within the footprint, the proposed action is not considered likely to reduce the overall area of occupancy of an important population as there should not be any clearing of the species.

c) fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

A.t.terminalis is has a very limited distribution, mainly in near-coastal areas from the northern shores of Sydney Harbour to Botany Bay (DEC 2005). Given no specimens of the species were identified during survey and none of these populations are located within the footprint; it is unlikely that the Project will result in any populations being fragmented.

d) adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Not applicable. No Critical habitat is listed on the register of Critical Habitat kept by the Director-General, DECCW or DII within the project area. To date, no critical habitat has been declared for this species.

e) disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

Given no specimens were identified during survey and only a small area of potential habitat will be temporarily cleared for the upgrade of the KBL pipeline there should be no disruption to the breeding cycle of the populations of the species in the locality.

f) modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

As the known locations of A.t.terminalis are outside of the footprint and that only a small area of potential habitat will be temporarily cleared for the upgrade of the KBL pipeline, it is considered very unlikely that potential habitat for this species will be removed or modified to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

g) result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat This species is known to be threatened by weed invasions. However given no specimens were observed within the footprint and a weed management plan will be adopted during the Project works it is unlikely that the Project will result in invasive species that are harmful to the species becoming established in available habitat adjacent to the footprint.

h) introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

Infection of native plants with Phytophthora cinnamomi has been listed as a Key Threatening Process under State (TSC Act) and Commonwealth legislation (EPBC Act). It is not known whether A.t.terminalis is susceptible to P. cinnamomi. However, even if it is not susceptible to direct attack, the subspecies will potentially be affected by habitat degradation should the vegetation at a site become infected with the pathogen and experience dieback. P. cinnamomi disperses independently through very moist but well aerated soil and can also be dispersed by vehicle movement if infected soils are attached. Given that the known specimens are located is close proximity to the footprint, there is some risk that habitat around the specimens may become infected with the fungus is transported by vehicle movement during the construction phase. However, if wash-down protocols are adopted (as detailed in Chapter 8 of the EA), the Project is unlikely to introduce this infection to cause the decline of this species.

i) interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

DECCW (2010) have released a draft recovery plan for A.t.terminalis with five primary recovery strategies. Of these two are relevant to the Project:

• Continued survey to identify specimens; and • To identify and minimise the threats operating at sites where A.t.terminalis occurs. Given a targeted field survey for this species was undertaken within the footprint of the Project it is unlikely this species occurs within it. As long as the proposed mitigation measures are adopted no threats are likely to impact the known specimen in close proximity to the Project. As such, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of this species, as no known individuals will be impacted, nor will any known habitat. Conclusion

The significant impact criteria assessment concludes that the Project is not likely to significantly impact A.t.terminalis. As such, a referral to the Minister is not required. A number of measures are recommended in Chapter 8 of the EA to ameliorate the degree of impact to ensure that biodiversity values within the Project area are maintained or improved. References

DECC (2005) Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis- profile, Department of Environment and Conservation, @ http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10028 Accessed 07/01/11. DECCW (2008) Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis - vulnerable species listing http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/AcaciaTerminalisEndSpListing.htm Accessed 07/01/11. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Commonwealth of Australia. DECCW 2010, National Recovery Plan Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis (Sunshine Wattle), Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water @ http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/acacia- terminalis-terminalis.pdf Accessed 07/01/11.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/acacia- Appendix B8

Species List (Flora) Appendix B8 - Species List (Flora)

Common Name Scientific Name Q1: WETLAND - Swamp Oak Forest Coast Banksia Banksia integrifolia Lantana Lantana camara Native Wandering Jew Commelina cyanea Wandering Jew Commelina sp. Camphor Laurel Cinnamomum camphora Giant Reed Arundo donax Southern Cattail Typha domingensis Bul Rush Typha orientalis Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Sydney Golden Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae Rainbow Fern Calochlaena dubia Swamp she-oak Casuarina glauca Blackberry Rubus sp. Gotu Kola Centella asiatica Native Hollyhock Tree Hibiscus splendens Bleeding Heart Homalanthus populifolius Bracken Pteridium esculentum Tall Sedge Carex appressa Green cestrum Cestrum parqui Australian panic grass Entolasia marginata Q2: NEW PIPE PUMPING STATION Swamp she-oak (dead) Casuarina glauca Spear grass (dessicated) Austrostipa sp. Fireweed Senecio madagascariensis Q3: PIPELINE EASEMENT - Modified Pasture/Exotic African Love Grass Eragrostis curvula Lamb's Tongues, Plantain Plantago lanceolata Plantago varia Pimelea latifolia Weeping Grass Microlaena stipoides Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare Oxalis sp White Clover Trifolium repens White Root Pratia purpurascens Tall Fescue Festuca arundinacea Sweet Vernal Grass Anthoxanthum odoratum Field Mustard, Turnip Brassica rapa St Barnabys Thistle Centaurea solstitialis Cape Weed Arctotheca calendula Indian Pennywort, Gotu Cola Centella asiatica Q4: BEACH FRONT - Coastal Banksia / Acacia Scrib (Planted) Swamp she-oak Casuarina glauca Wild Oats Avenua fatua Coastal Rosemary Westringia fruticosa Spiny-headed Mat-rush, Honey Reed Lomandra longifolia Cape Weed Arctotheca calendula Yellow Hawkweed Tolpis barbata Pigface, Iceplant Carpobrotus glaucescens Bitou Bush, Boneseed Chrysanthemoides monilifera Coast Banksia Banksia integrifolia Coast Teatree Leptospermum laevigatum Hydrocotyle bonariensis Melanthera biflora Water Hyacinth Eichbornia crassipes Asparagus Fern Asparagus scandens Appendix B9

Species List (Fauna) Appendix 9 - Species List (Fauna)

Common Name Scientific Name BIRD TRANSECT 1 - Section 1 (Beach Front) Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles Australian Raven Corvus coronoides Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps (Geophaps) lophotes Indian Myna Acridotheres tristis Silver Gull Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata Pee Wee Grallina cyanoleuca Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus Common Koel Eudynamys scolopacea Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala House/Common Sparrow Passer domesticus BIRD TRANSECT 2 - Section 2 (Pipeline Easement) Pied Currawong Strepera graculina Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen House/Common Sparrow Passer domesticus Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus Indian Myna Acridotheres tristis BIRD TRANSECT 3 - (Wetland) Rufus Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris Eastern Whipbird Psophodes olivaceus Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti Silvery eye Zosterops lateralis Striated Thornbill Acanthiza lineata Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus Appendix C

Heritage

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Prepared by Australian Museum Business Services for URS Australia Pty Limited

Final Report

March 2011

100795

Australian Museum Business Services - 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Ph (02) 9320 6311, Fax (02) 9320 6428 australianmuseum.net.au/AMBS [email protected] Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

II Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Document Information 100795

AMBS (2010) Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment. Citation: Consultancy report prepared for URS, on behalf of Caltex. LGA: Sutherland Shire Council Local Government Area & Botany Bay LGA. Version 1: Draft Report issued December 2010 Versions: Version 2: Final Draft Report issued January 2011 Version 3: Final Report issued March 2011 William Miles, Senior Environmental Planner, Recipient: URS Australia Pty Limited Approved by: Jennie Lindbergh, Senior Project Officer, AMBS Archaeology & Heritage Christopher Langeluddecke, Project Manager Primary Authors: Jennie Lindbergh, Senior Project Officer Deborah Farina, Project Officer

III Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

IV Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Executive Summary Caltex Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd (Caltex) propose to upgrade the Kurnell Jet Fuel Pipeline (B Line) (KBL), which runs from the Caltex Kurnell Refinery, beneath Botany Bay, to the Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal and then on to Sydney Airport. The Project has been designated a major project to which Part 3A, section 75F & 75M of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 applies. Australian Museum Business Services (AMBS) was commissioned by URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS), on behalf of Caltex, to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to address potential impacts to Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage arising from the works associated with the proposed upgrade. This report has been prepared in fulfilment of the Director General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the Project.

The aim of the KBL project is to secure an increased and more reliable jet fuel supply to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport thereby ensuring the ongoing viability and success of the airport business. The Caltex Kurnell Refinery was established in 1952 as the Australian Oil Refinery, which is identified as a heritage item on the SEPP for Kurnell Peninsula. Also, within the vicinity of the Caltex Refinery Wharf is the Kurnell Peninsula Headland, listed on the National Heritage List, and associated Cook’s Landing Place, as well as the locally listed Silver Beach and roadway. The background research and physical assessment of the Caltex Oil Refinery site and Banksmeadow Terminal, undertaken for the historic heritage assessment, has determined that there will be no impacts to identified heritage values of items or places within the vicinity of the project. The major component of the works will be wholly contained within the boundaries of the Caltex Oil Refinery site and the Banksmeadow Terminal. These works are consistent with the ongoing operation and the technical significance of each site. Existing pipeline trenches following the extant alignment to the Caltex Refinery Wharf will be used for the new pipeline such that no significant archaeological relics will be exposed. Running the pipeline along the Caltex Refinery Wharf will not disrupt the existing aesthetic values, views or amenity of the local environment. There will be no adverse impacts on the local heritage significance of Silver Beach and roadway. Views from the Kurnell Peninsula Headland to the wharf include the wider industrial landscape of Botany Bay and as such the new pipeline will not have a significant impact on national historic and aesthetic heritage values of this significant place. The results of the Aboriginal heritage survey and recommendations were discussed with the Aboriginal community representatives, who agreed the proposed project impact areas do not contain Aboriginal heritage sites, and have no potential to contain subsurface archaeological deposits.

V Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

VI Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment Contents Executive Summary ...... V 1 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Preamble ...... 2 1.2 Study Area ...... 2 1.3 The Proposal ...... 3 1.4 Methodology ...... 7 1.5 Authorship ...... 7 2 Statutory Context ...... 8 2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 8 2.2 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ...... 8 2.3 Heritage Act 1977 ...... 9 2.3.1 Sydney Water Corporation Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register) ...... 10 2.3.2 Roads & Traffic Authority Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register) ...... 10 2.3.3 Ports Authority Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register) ...... 10 2.4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) ...... 10 2.4.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989 ...... 10 2.4.2 Botany Local Environmental Plan 1995 ...... 11 3 Aboriginal Community Consultation ...... 12 3.1 Aboriginal Community Consultation Process ...... 12 4 Environmental Context ...... 14 4.1.1 Geology ...... 14 4.1.2 Soils and Topography ...... 14 4.1.3 Hydrology and Drainage ...... 14 4.1.4 Flora & Fauna ...... 15 4.1.5 Land Use & Disturbance ...... 15 5 Aboriginal Archaeological Context ...... 18 5.1.1 Regional Context ...... 18 5.1.2 Local Context ...... 19 5.1.3 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) results ...... 20 5.2 Aboriginal Heritage Site Predictive Modelling ...... 22 5.2.1 Sites likely to be present...... 23 6 Historic Context ...... 24 6.1 The Kurnell Peninsula...... 24 6.1.1 Peopling Australia ...... 24 6.1.2 Building settlements, towns and cities ...... 24 6.1.3 Early Industrial Development ...... 25 6.1.4 Caltex ...... 26 7 Physical Assessment ...... 34 7.1 Aboriginal Heritage ...... 34 7.1.1 Survey Methodology ...... 34 7.1.2 Survey Results – Kurnell Refinery ...... 34 7.1.3 Survey Results - Banksmeadow Terminal ...... 37 7.2 Historic Physical Analysis & Impact Assessment ...... 38 7.2.1 Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal ...... 38 7.2.2 Caltex Kurnell Refinery ...... 38 7.2.3 Impact Assessment – Kurnell Refinery ...... 44 8 Assessing Heritage Significance ...... 46 8.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment ...... 46 8.1.1 Scientific Significance ...... 46

VII Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

8.1.2 Cultural Significance ...... 47 8.2 Historic Heritage Significance ...... 47 9 Impact Assessment ...... 48 9.1 Aboriginal Heritage ...... 48 9.2 Historic Heritage ...... 48 Bibliography ...... 50 Appendix A ...... 54 Heritage Inventories ...... 54 • National Heritage Listing for Kurnell Peninsula Headland ...... 54 • Botany Local Environmental Plan – Botany Marshalling Yards ...... 54 Appendix B ...... 62 Log of Aboriginal Community Consultation ...... 62 Appendix C ...... 71 Table of Correspondence: ...... 71 NHL Heritage Values and SHR Significance Criteria ...... 71

Tables Table 2.1: Items on Schedule 3 of SEPP 2006 within the vicinity of the Kurnell study area ...... 11 Table 3.1 Aboriginal community fieldwork participants...... 13 Table 5.1: AHIMS data for the local area (AHIMS search conducted on 01/11/2010) ...... 20 Table 7.1 Kurnell Refinery study area survey coverage...... 35 Table 7.2 Kurnell Refinery landform summary...... 35

Figures Figure 1.1: Study area ...... 3 Figure 1.2 The scope of works at the Kurnell Refinery (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.2)...... 4 Figure 1.3 Detail of the scope of works at the Kurnell Refinery (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.3)...... 5 Figure 1.4 The scope of works at the Banksmeadow Terminal (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.3)...... 6 Figure 5.1: AHIMS sites in the vicinity of the study area ...... 21 Figure 5.2: Detail of AHIMS sites in the vicinity of the Kurnell study area ...... 22 Figure 6.1: Detail of Sutherland Parish map, undated, showing Kurnell peninsula land holdings (LPMA Parish Map Preservation Project No. 14033901)...... 25 Figure 6.2 1955 aerial showing the layout of the refinery site, with the wharf in Botany Bay, during the years following construction (Source: SSC) ...... 28 Figure 6.3: 1961 Aerial photo showing Australian Oil Refinery and the adjacent Caltex Lubricating Oil Refinery (left)...... 29 Figure 6.4 1943 aerial showing the extensive industrial development of the area. The future Caltex Terminal is circled...... 30 Figure 6.5 The Botany Marshalling Yards (Source: Oakes 2008:17) ...... 31 Figure 6.6: Detail of map for village of Banks Meadow – purple shading shows the Australian Oil Refinery in 1956 prior to land reclamation (LPMA: Map No. 14058101 Parish Map Preservation Project)...... 31 Figure 7.1 Kurnell pipeline location within refinery grounds. The proposed pipeline will be installed to the left of the road. View to north east...... 35 Figure 7.2 Kurnell pipeline location within refinery grounds. The proposed pipeline will be installed to the east of the road. View to south west...... 36 Figure 7.3 Kurnell pipeline location within easement. View to south east...... 37 Figure 7.4 Kurnell pipeline location within easement. View to north west...... 37 Figure 7.5 View to the west of Kurnell refinery from Solander Road to two fluid catalytic crackers...... 39

VIII Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.6 View along Road 7 to the south with Tank 157 to the left and Tank 168 to the right (left), and north, with Tank 165 to the right (right)...... 39 Figure 7.7 The existing pipelines adjacent to Tank 202 on Road 7...... 40 Figure 7.8 View northwest to Cook Street from Road 7 of the pipeline alignment...... 40 Figure 7.9 The Caltex facility on Prince Charles Parade...... 41 Figure 7.10 The Caltex Oil Refinery Wharf at Silver Beach...... 41 Figure 7.11 View to the east along Prince Charles Parade. Note imprinted patterns in the footpath. .. 42 Figure 7.12 View west along Prince Charles Parade...... 42 Figure 7.13 Entry to Botany Bay National Park and Kurnell Peninsula Headland. The Cook Obelisk, marking Captain Cook’s Landing Place, is on the headland beyond...... 43 Figure 7.14 View to the Cook Obelisk...... 43 Figure 7.15 Two views to the north from the Kurnell Peninsula to the extensive industrial environment...... 45

IX Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

1

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

1 Introduction 1.1 Preamble Australian Museum Business Services (AMBS) has been commissioned by URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS), on behalf of Caltex Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd (Caltex), to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to address potential impacts to Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage arising from the proposed upgrade of the Kurnell Jet Fuel Pipeline (B Line) (KBL). KBL is a pipeline which runs from the Caltex Kurnell Refinery, beneath Botany Bay, to the Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal and then on to Sydney Airport.

The Project has been designated a major project to which Part 3A, section 75F & 75M of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) applies. The relevant Director General’s Requirements (DGRs), issued 18 January 2011 identify Aboriginal Heritage as a key issue, requiring the project Environmental Assessment to address the following:

Aboriginal Heritage – including: sufficient information and discussion to demonstrate the likely impacts on Aboriginal Heritage values/items and proposed mitigation measures; and Should Aboriginal sites be found, an assessment of the Aboriginal sites identified should be done.

In addition, the following is relevant:

General Environmental Risk Analysis – including an environmental risk analysis to identify potential environmental impacts (construction and operation), proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant residual environmental impacts after the application of proposed mitigation measures and an appropriately detailed impact assessment of any additional key environmental impacts identified through the risk analysis.

The DGRs require consultation with relevant local Aboriginal communities and Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs) during preparation of the EA, and compliance with Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment and Community Consultation (DoP and DEC). An assessment of the potential for adverse impacts on historic heritage fulfils the requirement of General Environmental Risk Analysis.

This report has been prepared to fulfil these requirements. 1.2 Study Area The study area comprises two distinct areas on the north and south sides of Botany Bay; the Caltex Kurnell Refinery, including an easement between the refinery and a wharf at Silver Beach on Botany Bay, as well as the Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal, across the Bay. The Caltex Kurnell Refinery is within the Sutherland Shire Council Local Government Area (LGA), while the Banksmeadow Terminal is within the City of Botany Bay LGA.

2

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 1.1: Study area 1.3 The Proposal Caltex is in the process of upgrading the KBL, of which Stage 1 was completed in the first quarter of 2010. Under the Stage 2 works Caltex is proposing to upgrade the KBL so as to increase its available capacity and improve the reliability of delivery of jet fuel to Sydney Airport (Figure 1.2 – Figure 1.4). At the Kurnell Refinery the proposed works involve installing new transfer pumps, coalescers, a new pigging station and other associated plant. The length of pipeline that runs from the refinery itself up to and on the wharf to the tie in point before the pipeline enters Botany Bay will also be replaced. The works will also relocate the pigging station at the wharf and install a new pigging station at the transfer pumps. At Banksmeadow Terminal the proposed works involve installing booster pumps, one coalescer, a number of valves, refurbishment of the pigging stations, installation of a variable speed drive (VSD) switchroom as well as installation of other mechanical and electrical plant.

3

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 1.2 The scope of works at the Kurnell Refinery (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.2).

4

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 1.3 Detail of the scope of works at the Kurnell Refinery (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.3).

5

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 1.4 The scope of works at the Banksmeadow Terminal (Source: KBL PEA Figure 2.3).

6

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

1.4 Methodology This heritage impact assessment is broadly consistent with the processes and principles set out in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance).

The assessment of Aboriginal scientific significance has been undertaken in accordance with the NPWS Aboriginal Heritage Guidelines (1997). The report complies with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) requirements for consultation with Aboriginal community representatives as per the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (2010).

The historic heritage impact assessment has been prepared in accordance with current best-practice heritage guidelines as identified in the NSW Heritage Manual published by the Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (now the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning) and associated documents, including Assessing Heritage Significance. 1.5 Authorship This report has been prepared by AMBS Senior Project Manager Jennie Lindbergh, Project Manager Christopher Langeluddecke, and Project Officer Deborah Farina. AMBS Senior Project Manager, Jennie Lindbergh reviewed the report for consistency and quality.

7

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

2 Statutory Context 2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 In 2004, a new Commonwealth heritage management system was introduced under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The National Heritage List (NHL) was established to protect places that have outstanding value to the nation. The Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) has been established to protect items and places owned or managed by Commonwealth agencies. Approval from the Minister is required for controlled actions which are deemed will have a significant impact on items and places included on the NHL or CHL.

• The Kurnell Peninsula Headland, Listing No. 105812, is listed on the NHL

There are no items within the near vicinity of the Kurnell Oil Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal listed on the CHL.

The Register of the National Estate (RNE) was originally established under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Since the establishment of the NHL and CHL, there is now a significant level of overlap between the Register of the National Estate and heritage lists at the national, state and territory, and local government levels. To address this situation, the Register has been frozen since February 2007, meaning that no places can be added or removed. The RNE should be understood as an information resource only. Where an action has been referred to the Minister, in accordance with the EPBC Act, concerning World Heritage, National Heritage, Wetlands, endangered communities, or Commonwealth lands, the RNE may be used as a reference, where appropriate.

• Captain Cook’s Landing Place Historic Site is included on the RNE (Listing No. 3335) 2.2 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Under the provisions of the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is responsible for the care, control and management of all national parks, historic sites, nature reserves, state conservation areas, karst conservation reserves and regional parks. The Director-General is also responsible, under this legislation, for the protection and care of native fauna and flora, and Aboriginal places and objects throughout NSW.

All Aboriginal Objects are protected regardless of their significance or land tenure under the NPW Act. Aboriginal Objects can include pre-contact features such as scarred trees, middens and open campsites, as well as physical evidence of post-contact use of the area such as Aboriginal built fencing and fringe camps. The NPW Act also protects Aboriginal Places, which are defined as ‘is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture’. Aboriginal Places can only be declared by the Minister administering the NPW Act.

Under Section 90 of the Act, it is an offence for a person to destroy, deface, damage or desecrate an Aboriginal Object or Aboriginal Place without the prior issue of a Section 90 consent. The Act requires a person to take reasonable precautions and due diligence to avoid impacts on Aboriginal Objects. Section 90 consents may only be obtained from the Environmental Protection and Regulation Division (EPRD) of DECCW. It is also an offence under Section 86 of the NPW Act to disturb or excavate land for the purpose of discovering an Aboriginal Object, or to disturb or move an Aboriginal Object on any land, without first obtaining a permit under Section 87 of the NPW Act.

The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Regulation 2010 commenced on 1 October 2010. This Regulation excludes activities carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological 8

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW from the definition of harm in the Act. That is, test excavations may be carried out in accordance with this Code of Practice, without requiring a permit. The Regulation also specifies Aboriginal community consultation requirements (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010). In addition, the Regulation adopts a Due Diligence Code of Practice which specifies activities that are low impact, providing a defence to the strict liability offence of harming an Aboriginal object.

Part of the regulatory framework for the implementation of the NPW Act is the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), maintained by DECCW. AHIMS includes a database of Aboriginal heritage sites, items, places and other objects that have been reported to the DECCW. Also available through AHIMS are site cards, which describe Aboriginal sites registered in the database, as well as Aboriginal heritage assessment reports, which contribute to assessments of scientific significance for Aboriginal sites. The AHIMS is not a comprehensive list of all Aboriginal heritage in NSW, rather it reflects information which has been reported to DECCW. As such, site co- ordinates in the database vary in accuracy depending on the method used to record their location. Heritage consultants are obliged to report Aboriginal sites identified during field investigations to DECCW, regardless of land tenure, or whether such sites are likely to be impacted by a proposed development. The results of a site search for the local area are presented in Section 5.1.3. 2.3 Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act 1977 provides protection for heritage places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts that are important to the people of NSW. These include items of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage significance. Where these items or places have particular importance to the State of NSW, they are listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR).

There are no items or places within the near vicinity of the Kurnell Oil Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal listed on the SHR.

The Act also provides statutory protection to relics, archaeological artefacts, features or deposits. Sections 139 to 146 of the Act requires that excavation or disturbance of land that is likely to contain, or is believed may contain, archaeological relics is undertaken in accordance with an excavation permit issued by the Heritage Council (or in accordance with a gazetted exception under Section 139(4) of the Heritage Act).

The Act defines an archaeological relic as meaning any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that:

(a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance.

Under Section 170 of the Heritage Act, government instrumentalities are required to maintain a register of heritage assets: a Heritage and Conservation Register, also known as a Section 170 Register. Section 170A (1) of the Heritage Act requires that a government instrumentality must give the NSW Heritage Council not less than 14 days written notice before the government instrumentality: (a) removes any item from its register under section 170, or (b) transfers ownership of any item entered in its register, or (c) ceases to occupy or demolishes any place, building or work entered in its register.

It should be noted that most activities, other than maintenance and cleaning, that impact on items listed on the Section 170 Register need approval from the Heritage Council. At a minimum this will require that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) is approved by the appropriate authority.

9

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Activities that involve heritage items also require the preparation of a heritage impact statement. This report has been prepared to fulfil this requirement.

2.3.1 Sydney Water Corporation Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register)

There are no items or places within the near vicinity of Kurnell Oil Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal listed on the Sydney Water Section 170 Register.

2.3.2 Roads & Traffic Authority Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register)

There are no items or places within the near vicinity of Kurnell Oil Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal listed on the Roads and Traffic Section 170 Register.

2.3.3 Ports Authority Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register)

There are no items or places within the near vicinity of the of Kurnell Oil Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal listed on the Ports Authority Section 170 Register. 2.4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal law regulating land use planning and development in NSW, and requires consideration to be given to the environment as part of the land use planning process. Projects are considered under different parts of the Act, including:

• Major projects, requiring the approval of the Minister for Planning and which are regional or State significant are undertaken under Part 3A of the Act. • Minor or routine development projects, requiring local council consent are usually undertaken under Part 4. In limited circumstances, projects may require the Minister’s consent. • Projects which do not fall under Part 4 or Part 3A are undertaken under Part 5. These are often infrastructure projects approved by local councils or the State agency undertaking the project.

The current project has been approved as a major project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. Draft DGRs issued require Aboriginal heritage to be assessed as part of an Environment Assessment for the project.

The EP&A Act also controls the making of environmental planning instruments (EPIs). Two types of EPIs can be made: Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), covering local government areas; and State Environment Planning Policies (SEPPs), covering areas of State or regional environmental planning significance. LEPs commonly identify, and have provisions for, the protection of local heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

2.4.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989 (SEPP) was amended in August 2010. The SEPP addresses the particular area of the Kurnell Peninsula with the stated aims and objectives including: 1. (a) to conserve the natural environment of the Kurnell Peninsula and ensure that development is managed having regard to the environmental, cultural and economic significance of the area to the nation, State, region and locality, (b) to apply environmental performance criteria which will ensure that the environment is not adversely affected by development, 10

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

2. (i) to conserve the environmental heritage of the Kurnell Peninsula.

The SEPP includes provisions for protecting items and places of Aboriginal and historic heritage, in particular under Clauses 23A–23D, and Clauses 20A–20C of the Amended Policy. Schedule 3 ‘Heritage items’ includes the following which are within the near vicinity of the Caltex Oil Refinery site. Table 2.1: Items on Schedule 3 of SEPP 2006 within the vicinity of the Kurnell study area

Item Primary Address Listing No. Botany Bay National Park – Kurnell Historic Site and Kurnell Peninsula L015 S Monuments Prince Charles Boatshed B341 Parade, Kurnell Prince Charles Silver Beach and roadway L012 Parade, Kurnell Towra Point Nature Reserve Towra Point L010 R and Quibray Bay Cape Solander Captain Cook Landing Site A082 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Banks Memorial A084 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Solander monument A085 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Forby Sutherland monument A087 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Landing Place Wharf abutment A088 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Alpha Farm site A089 Drive, Kurnell Captain Cook Watering Cape Solander A090/A091 Hole/Well Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Flagpole A092 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Yena Track A093 Drive, Kurnell Cape Solander Muru Track A094 Drive, Kurnell Captain Cook Four wheel drive track A028 Drive, Kurnell Sir Joseph Banks Australian Oil Refinery A038 Drive, Kurnell

2.4.2 Botany Local Environmental Plan 1995

Part 4 (clauses 31-37A) of the Botany Council LEP 1995 provide protection for heritage within the LGA. This includes heritage buildings, works, relics, trees or places, and items of Aboriginal heritage. The LEP specifies that Council consent is required for works undertaken to a heritage item or in the vicinity of a heritage item. Schedule 3 lists heritage items and heritage conservation areas within the Local Government Area.

There are 181 heritage items and two heritage conservation areas listed on Schedule 3; however, the Botany Bay Marshalling Yards, Beauchamp Road, Banksmeadow (Listing No. 21), is the only item or place within the near vicinity of the Banksmeadow Terminal.

11

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

3 Aboriginal Community Consultation Aboriginal community consultation is an integral part of the assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Interim Community Consultation Requirement for Applicants (DEC 2004). A log of the Aboriginal consultation undertaken for this project is provided in Appendix B.

The aims of this consultation process were to:

• allow identification of local Aboriginal community groups and individuals with an interest in being involved in the ongoing consultation process; • provide the local Aboriginal community with the opportunity to inspect and comment on any Aboriginal sites and values of the study area and be involved in the heritage assessment process; • identify the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the study area; • provide an opportunity for the local Aboriginal community to comment on the outcomes and recommendations of draft heritage assessment reporting; and • integrate Aboriginal heritage values and recommendations for management into the assessment report. 3.1 Aboriginal Community Consultation Process In accordance with DECCW guidelines, advertisements were placed in the St George & Sutherland Leader newspaper on 4 November 2010. The advertisements sought expressions of interest for participation in the Aboriginal heritage assessment process for the project to be registered. The closing date for registrations was 18 November 2010.

Emails were sent on 2 November 2010 to DECCW, NTS Corp, Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Land Rights, Sutherland Shire Council (SSC), Botany Bay City Council (BBCC), the Native Title Tribunal, Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Authority and La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC) requesting notification of any known Aboriginal groups that should be consulted for the assessment. DECCW identified La Perouse LALC, Yarrawalk/Tocumwal, La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation and Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council as groups that should be contacted as part of the consultation process. BBCC identified La Perouse LALC, SSC identified Kurranulla Aboriginal Corporation to be contacted to determine whether they had an interest in being involved in the consultation and assessment process.

A search of the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) Register for the Botany Bay and Sutherland Shire LGAs encompassing the study area was undertaken on 2 November 2010. The only native title claim which was identified as currently valid for the study area is that lodged by Gordon Morton, Angela Martin and Colin Rex Gale (previously from Tribal Aboriginal Corporation (DTAC), and now associated with Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments (DACHA)).

The following groups confirmed their interest to be consulted on the project:

• Koomurri Management; • La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation; • Norma Simms, Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council; • Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments (who indicated that their area of interest in the project only included the Banksmeadow Terminal study area); and • Ken Forster (Dharawal Tribal Custodian).

12

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Each of these groups was provided with details of the proposed development and the draft heritage assessment methodology, on 17 November 2010. Comments regarding the proposed development and draft methodology were requested by 10 December 2010. Based in their requested level of involvement, stated cultural knowledge of the area, and experience in heritage assessments, invitations to participate in the field assessment at the Kurnell Refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal study areas were forwarded to:

• Dharawal Tribal Custodian; • La Peruse LALC; • La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation; and • Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council.

An invitation to participate in the field assessment of the study area at Banksmeadow Terminal was forwarded to Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments. Aboriginal community groups who participated in the fieldwork are listed in Table 3.1. Information provided by the Aboriginal community groups in the initial consultation phase, and during the field survey, has been integrated into the assessment, where appropriate. Although Dharawal Tribal Custodian and La Peruse LALC were invited to participate in the fieldwork, no representative was able to attend the field assessment. Table 3.1 Aboriginal community fieldwork participants.

Aboriginal Community Organisation Field Representative La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation Yvonne Simms Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council Scott Franks Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments Gordon Morton

The results of the survey and the proposed recommendations were discussed with representatives in the field, and no objections were raised. The draft Aboriginal heritage assessment report was provided to each group for review and comment. No written responses were provided by registered stakeholders within the 28 day feedback period. Verbal feedback was received from the La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation, who also responded on behalf of the Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council. Information provided by the Aboriginal community groups has been integrated into the assessment and associated documentation where appropriate, and also attached in Appendix B.

13

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

4 Environmental Context An understanding of environmental factors within the local landscape provides a context for analysing past human occupation and history of an area. The natural environment was, and is, of key importance to Aboriginal people for both cultural and spiritual reasons. It also provided a wealth of natural resources for subsistence, tool making and occupation. The characteristics of the natural environment often influenced occupation and subsistence strategies. For the purpose of cultural heritage management, the analysis of environmental factors is important as it contributes to the development of predictive models for archaeological sites, as well as providing a basis to contextualise the archaeological material and the interpret patterns of past human behaviour

4.1.1 Geology

The geology of the Kurnell Peninsula is chiefly made up of quaternary alluvium, with Hawkesbury sandstone on the eastern-most margins. Hawkesbury sandstone dates from the Triassic period and is a component of the Wianamatta Group. It comprises quartz sandstone with some shales. The alluvium is from the more recent quaternary period and comprises gravel, swamp deposits and sand dunes (Rose, 1966).

The geology of the Banksmeadow area is chiefly of the quaternary period, and is made up of alluvium, gravel, sand, silt and clay. Some areas south of the Banksmeadow portion of the study area are situated on reclaimed land (Bryan, 1966).

4.1.2 Soils and Topography

The dominant soil type on the Kurnell peninsula is the Aeolian landscape known as the Kurnell soil landscape, characterised by deep (>200 cm) Podzols on dunes and in swales. Organic acid peats are found in swamps. The dominant soil materials include loose brown sand, single-grained with a sandy fabric (often as topsoil), grey brown mottled sand, brown soft sandy iron pan, loose yellowish brown sand and black sticky peat. Associated soil material occurs as black organic pan. On dunes, up to 80cm of brown sand overlies up to 15 cm of coffee rock and up to 130 cm yellow brand sand. On swales, up to 25 cm of brown sand overlies up to 25 cm black sticky peat, often resulting in perched water tables. The soils in this landscape have low to very low fertility, with very low erodibility. It has permanently high watertables, is highly permeable and is an extreme wind erosion hazard. It is not considered capable of urban development, or of being grazed or cultivated (Hazelton & Tille, 1990:86-89).

The dominant soil type at Banksmeadow is described as a ‘disturbed terrain’. It is characterised as terrain disturbed by human activity, and are often areas that have been landscaped and artificially drained. Dominant soils often comprise loose black sandy loam, compacted mottled clay, variable transported fill and dark dredged muds and sands. These soils have been disturbed to a depth of at least 100 cm, with most of the original soil being removed, buried or greatly disturbed. The fertility of such soil landscapes are inherently low, with low erodibility, and variable surface movement potential (Chapman & Murphy, 1989:132-135).

4.1.3 Hydrology and Drainage

The low-lying nature and its location on Botany Bay is such that the Kurnell township is vulnerable to flooding, particularly as a result of tidal inundation. The majority of the township is below 3 m AHD, and does not possess a single drainage line with associated tributaries. The area’s natural sandy soils allow for rapid infiltration until the groundwater table rises to the surface (Sutherland Shire Council, 2009:14).

14

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

The swamp systems were important to the natural drainage of the area by collecting runoff from higher ground. However, residential development and the construction of the oil refinery have had a significant impact on the hydrology of the area, with infiltration and storage areas reduced, and natural flow paths constricted. Prior to the construction of the oil refinery, the swamp covered a much greater area, allowing for more efficient drainage (ibid).

Although some of these issues have been addressed through pipelines connected to the swamps and the oil refinery, flooding remains an issue in the Kurnell township (Sutherland Shire Council, 2009:14- 15).

The two major watercourses in Banksmeadow were the Cooks River to the west of the Banksmeadow study area and Bunnerong Creek to the east. The course of Cooks River was modified as a result of the construction of Mill Pond and Engineers Pond in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries, and later by Kingsford Smith international airport, whilst the mouth of Bunnerong Creek was modified as a result of land reclamation in the twentieth century.

In the 1970s, chlorinated hydrocarbons were identified in the groundwater by ICI Australia (now Orica Australia) following decades of industrial activity at its Botany plant. As a result, the Banksmeadow study area is within a primary exclusion zone for extraction of groundwater. Orica have developed an extraction and treatment program of the groundwater in an effort to prevent the toxic runoff into Botany Bay. Nearby suburbs are also restricted from operating bores domestically (Orica, undated).

4.1.4 Flora & Fauna

With a combination of wetlands, dry sclerophyll, dune and marine ecosystems, the Kurnell peninsula has a diverse range of flora and fauna, both marine and terrestrial. The Banksmeadow area also has a combination of dune and marine ecologies. Both areas contain a combination of introduced and native species of plants, birds, fish and which have flourished despite the level of disturbance to their respective habitats, however, both areas also have a number of threatened, vulnerable, protected and endangered species.

4.1.5 Land Use & Disturbance

The natural landscape of both in the Kurnell and Banksmeadow areas has been altered since European contact period by many activities.

Kurnell

The Kurnell landscape had been altered from the earliest times of European settlement. One of the earliest inhabitants, Thomas Holt, cut down most of the native trees in the mid nineteenth century, then put sheep then cattle to graze, thus eliminating the native shrubs and grass. Bare dunes thereafter dominated the landscape (Salt 2000:30-31). By the early twentieth century, sand extraction became a major industry in the area.

The construction and operation of the oil refinery in the 1950s also impacted on the natural landscape, involving the drainage of swamps, as well as the excavation of the dunes. As mentioned above, this resulted in the alteration of the natural hydrology and drainage of the area.

Banksmeadow

Early land uses in the Banksmeadow/Botany area were chiefly manufacturing/industrial, with market gardening, fishing, wool scours, tanneries, lime kilns and boat building all operating in the area. A

15

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment fishing village named ‘Fishing Town’ was established in the early 1800s approximately 2 km north of the Banksmeadow study area, and continued until the 1970s.

Although mainly an industrial area, land grants were made in the area from the 1820s. One of the earliest land grants was made to John Neathway Brown, who built his home Bunnerong House on the banks of Bunnerong Creek in 1823. Simeon Lord, an early convict-turned-successful entrepreneur, had his home, Banks House, built at Botany in the 1820s, where he also built the first mill in the area.

However, in more recent times, much of the area has been subject to heavy industrial uses, such as ICI Australia (chemical manufacture), Botany Paper Mills and the Bunnerong Power Station. In addition, in 1952-1955 Caltex built its oil terminal at Banksmeadow in order to transport oil from its Kurnell refinery. In the 1970s, Botany Bay was earmarked to become Sydney’s prime sea cargo transport facility, which involved substantial land reclamation to construct the piers and dock facilities.

16

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

17

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

5 Aboriginal Archaeological Context This section describes the nature of the known Aboriginal archaeology of the study area and is based on a review of the relevant archaeological reports and publications, as well as on information on previously recorded sites in DECCW’s Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database. This review has been undertaken to assist in the development of a predictive model for potential Aboriginal sites within the study area and to establish a context for a comparative archaeological significance assessment.

5.1.1 Regional Context

Aboriginal occupation of the Sydney basin is likely to have spanned at least 20,000 years, although dates of more than 40,000 years have been claimed for artefacts found in gravels of the Cranebrook Terrace on the Nepean River (Stockton and Holland 1974; Nanson et al 1987; Stockton 1993). Late Pleistocene occupation sites have been identified on the fringes of the Sydney basin and from rockshelter sites in adjoining areas. Dates obtained from these sites are 14,700 BP at Shaws Creek in the Blue Mountain foothills (Kohen et al 1984), c. 11,000 BP at Loggers Shelter in Mangrove Creek (Attenbrow 1981, 2004), and c. 20,000 BP at Burrill Lake on the South Coast (Lampert 1971). The majority of sites in the region, however, date to within the last 3,000 to 5,000 years, with many researchers proposing that occupation intensity increased from this period (Kohen 1986; McDonald 1994; McDonald and Rich 1993). Such an increase in occupation intensity may have been influenced by rising sea levels, which stabilised approximately 6,500 years ago. Older occupation sites along the now submerged coastline would have been flooded, with subsequent occupation concentrating along, and utilising resources of, the current coastlines and the changing ecological systems of the hinterland (Attenbrow 2003).

A study of the Sydney region reveals that Aboriginal sites are distributed across the whole range of physiographic units and environmental zones, although certain types of sites may be more frequently associated with certain parts of the landscape (for example, shelter sites are particularly common in areas of Hawkesbury Sandstone), and different parts of the landscape contain different resources, which may be seasonally available or highly localised (Koettig 1996). Hence, shell middens are common in the Part Jackson region around the shores of bays, rivers, harbours and the coast, in areas where shellfish are available. Accordingly, the archaeological record is different to that of the Cumberland Plain of Sydney, partly because of the different resources in these areas (Attenbrow 1990:30).

In 1989-90, Val Attenbrow undertook Stage 1 of the Port Jackson Archaeological Project, which involved documentary research on previous archaeological work done in the catchment, detailed recording of registered sites and some field survey of areas where no sites had been registered. Stage 2 involved further research of regional issues through excavation of certain sites. Overall, Attenbrow classified six sites as having excellent research potential, 48 as having good potential, and 151 as having poor to nil potential. Attenbrow found, from a review of excavation work in the Port Jackson area, that Aboriginal people were living around the harbour foreshores gathering shellfish at least 4,500 years ago, that the number and species of shellfish represented in middens varied according to distance from the harbour mouth, and that a change from exploitation of predominantly cockle (Anadara trapezia) to predominantly oysters (Saccostrea commercialis) appears to have occurred over time in this region (Attenbrow 1990:30). She also found that most middens are located within 10 m of the high water level, and that burials were placed in open middens as well as in middens within rockshelters. In the same year, as part of an Aboriginal Sites Planning Study for the Lane Cove River State Recreation Area, the NPWS observed that regional excavations of coastal sites with midden layers indicated the exploitation of a variety of sea and land resources (NPWS 1990).

18

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

It should also be recognised that the archaeological evidence within any particular site can vary considerably in quantity and the range of evidence present, and that the number of sites or amount of archaeological evidence found in any specific area varies. Further, the distribution of presently recorded sites in some areas is unlikely to be indicative of the original distribution of Aboriginal sites and therefore may not be a reliable guide to the occupation history of that area (Koettig 1996). Accordingly, without professional archaeological assessment of an area, the sites most likely to have been recorded are those which are most obvious to non-professionals, such as rockshelters and art sites.

5.1.2 Local Context

A number of archaeological investigations have been conducted in the vicinity of both portions of the study area. Each of these studies has noted that both Kurnell and Banksmeadow are areas of high cultural significance to the local communities, and that the presence of known archaeological sites, the topography and history of both portions of the study area are consistent with general predictive models for the Sydney basin suggesting the presence of archaeological sites being encountered, particular with any subsurface works.

Kurnell

The traditional owners of the Kurnell Peninsula are the Gweagal people, a sub-group of the Tharawal language group. It is estimated that people have been living on the coast in the Sydney/Illawarra region for approximately 10,000 years (Sutherland Shire Council, undated).

On the Kurnell Peninsula, a number of middens were excavated in the Boat Harbour area in the 1970s, to the south of the current study area (see Dickson, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1980). One such stratified midden was carbon-dated between 470 ± 10 BP and 1950 ± 10 BP. The excavations also compared results with those of other known sites on the Kurnell Peninsula, particularly the artefact scatters in the dunes and the middens at the Landing Point. Dickson (1971) perceived more ‘cultural connection’ between the middens of Boat Harbour and the middens of the Landing Site than with the Bondaian artefact scatters in the dunes or the pre-Bondaian industry at Potters Point, mainly due to the paucity of stone artefacts identified at both midden sites. Later excavations of another nearby midden (Dickson, 1974) and a site at Potters Point (Dickson, 1980) came to the same conclusion.

Other investigations on the Kurnell peninsula have centred around the Quibray Bay area (e.g. Byrne (1987a, 1987b), and the National Park (e.g. Irish, 2007). The investigations of the Quibray Bay area to the west of the current study area were subject to sand extraction. They also involved the investigation of middens in the dune systems of the peninsula. Byrne notes the difficulty in relocating sites on the Kurnell Peninsula, largely due to the relatively rapid movement of the dunes due to prevailing onshore winds (Byrne, 1987a:1-2). The midden had been disturbed, chiefly by recreational off-road vehicles. Two trenches were excavated, one by 16 x 5cm spits, and one by 6 x 5cm spits. No artefacts were identified in the first trench, and two in the second. These artefacts were located on a dark sand layer, possibly a former land surface. No midden material was recovered. Byrne concluded that this site should be re-categorised as an artefact scatter rather than a midden (ibid:7). In a separate investigation at Quibray Bay, a suite of 11 middens were investigated, and had been similarly disturbed by vehicles. Each midden was excavated by a 50cm x 50cm trench in 5cm spits. Midden material excavated included anadara, pyrazus and ostrea shell, with some flaked stone.

The investigation of the Kurnell Meeting Place precinct entailed the excavation of a number of shovel test pits across the precinct to determine the subsurface archaeological potential of the area. The result of these investigations found that some Aboriginal archaeological remains were in situ, the material recovered was nonetheless informative. An in situ midden was also located near the Cook Stream Dam, and recommendations were made to avoid the area where possible.

19

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

The archaeological investigations carried out in the vicinity of the Kurnell portion of the study area demonstrate that despite disturbance across the peninsula, some in situ archaeological deposits may be encountered during any excavation work. However, given the nature and level of disturbance in the study area, this is considered unlikely.

Banksmeadow

Only a small number of Aboriginal archaeological investigations have been conducted in the vicinity of the Banksmeadow portion of the study area, although a number of sites have been identified, particularly in the Yarra Bay area.

In the immediate vicinity of the Banksmeadow portion of the study area, Navin Officer (2003, 2006) have noted that although no archaeological sites are located within the study area, a number of sites are present within the general area. Rich (1986) excavated a midden at nearby Yarra Point and noted the high disturbance of the site, but concluded that the site was significant based on rarity. In this case, a large artefact scatter was located in association with the midden. Rich also noted the significance of the Botany Bay sites to the local Aboriginal communities.

Given the heavy disturbance in the area, particularly as a result of the 19th century lime-burning industries and 20th century land reclamation, it is considered unlikely that any in situ archaeological deposits would remain in the study area.

5.1.3 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) results

A search of the AHIMS database identified 88 registered Aboriginal sites recorded in vicinity of the two study areas (see Table 5.1). As can be seen in Figure 3.1, there are no sites noted within the immediate vicinity of the Banksmeadow portion of the study area. In the Kurnell portion, however (see Figure 4.1), there is a registered site within 100m-150m from the study area.

Table 5.1: AHIMS data for the local area (AHIMS search conducted on 01/11/2010)

Site types Count Percent Burial/s, midden 2 2.27% Burial/s, midden, shelter with deposit 1 1.14% Burial/s, shelter with midden 1 1.14% Midden 37 42.05% Midden, mound (oven) 1 1.14% Midden, open camp site 6 6.82% Artefact site 26 29.55% Rock engraving 11 12.50% Shelter with art 1 1.14% Shelter with midden 2 2.27% TOTALS 88 100%

20

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 5.1: AHIMS sites in the vicinity of the study area

21

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 5.2: Detail of AHIMS sites in the vicinity of the Kurnell study area 5.2 Aboriginal Heritage Site Predictive Modelling Archaeological models are used to provide a framework for assessing scientific significance and are constructed on the basis of environmental context, AHIMS data and previous archaeological investigations. On the basis of the archaeological sites registered in the area, and a review of previous

22

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment archaeological studies, the potential presence of Aboriginal sites within the landscape of the study area can be modelled and predictive statements can be made about the types of sites likely to occur.

5.2.1 Sites likely to be present

Shell Middens

Shell middens result from Aboriginal exploitation and consumption of shellfish, in marine, estuarine or freshwater contexts. Middens may also include faunal remains such as fish or mammal bone, stone artefacts, hearths, charcoal and, occasionally, burials.

This is the most common site type located in the vicinity of the study area, particularly near Kurnell. As can be seen from the AHIMS data above, the overall percentage of midden in the study area, either alone or in association with another site type, is 55.69%.

Artefact Scatters and Isolated finds (open camp sites)

Artefact scatters and isolated finds (also known as open camp sites, and combined in Table 5.1.1 as ‘Artefact site’) are likely to be present in the local landscape. These sites usually comprise flaked stone artefacts, although ground stone artefacts, bone or shell, may also occur. Such sites are generally interpreted as camp sites; however they can also represent other types of activity areas. Aboriginal campsites occupied during the post contact period (after 1788) may include glass, ceramic and metals. Artefact sites may also occur as artefact scatters (containing more than one artefact), or may occur as isolated finds (comprising a single artefact). These sites indicate Aboriginal occupation of the area and, in some cases, may be associated with a potential archaeological deposit (PAD). Aboriginal campsites are generally associated with resource zones within the local landscape.

Rock Engraving

Rock engravings are petroglyphs, i.e. figures etched into stone, often depicting animals, people and/or symbols. There are examples of rock engravings found across Australia, with each region exhibiting its own style and motifs.

There are a number of rock engravings found near the study area, and generally along rocky headlands along the eastern coast of NSW.

Rock shelters (with or without art)

A common site type in many parts of the country, rock shelters are naturally formed hollows or overhangs in a cliff, usually found in coastal, mountainous or hilly terrain. Rock shelters are often habitation sites, either transient or semi-permanent. Some rock shelters also contain examples of rock art, artefact scatters and/or middens.

There are three shelters recorded near the study area.

23

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

6 Historic Context 6.1 The Kurnell Peninsula 6.1.1 Peopling Australia

Captain Cook arrived in Botany Bay on 28 April 1770, on HM Bark Endeavour during his three year voyage, an aim of which was to observe the transit of Venus at Tahiti in 1769. An objective was also to verify Terra Australis Incognito (the unknown southern land). Cook was the first European to have set foot on the east coast of Australia and his landing place at Kurnell is known as the ‘birthplace of the nation’.

When the Endeavour sailed into Botany Bay, Cook noted:

...several of the Natives and a few Hutts; Men, Women and Children on the South Shore abreast of the ship, to which place I went in the Boats in the hopes of speaking with them, accompanied by Mr Banks, Mr Solander and Tupia (a Tahitian brought along as an interpreter). As we approached the Shore they all made off, except 2 men, who seem’d resolved to oppose our landing. As soon as I saw this, I ordered the boats to lay upon their Oars, in order to speak to them; but this was to little purpose, for neither us nor Tupia could understand one word they said (Cook, 1770).

After an initial skirmish with spears thrown and muskets fired, Cook landed with Joseph Banks and his associate Daniel Solander. The Aboriginal men retreated to bushland, and Banks being of the opinion that their spears may have been poisoned, Cook elected not to follow. After unsuccessfully searching for water, Cook returned to the Endeavour and sailed to the northern shore of the Bay, where he found a fresh water source. The following day, Cook had his men dig on the sand, where he found a fresh water source sufficient to water all of the ships. That watercourse is now known as Cook’s Stream.

Based on Cook’s recommendations, the First Fleet sailed from Portsmouth on 13 May 1787 and arrived at Kurnell in January 1788. Some land was cleared, but due to the sandy soil and lack of fresh water, the permanent settlement was established to the north on Port Jackson, and the colony of Sydney was established. The Kurnell Peninsula was not settled until 1815, when James Birnie, a retired sea captain, was granted 700 acres (Salt 2000:25).

6.1.2 Building settlements, towns and cities

Land Tenure

James Birnie had intended to build a whaling station on his land at Kurnell; however, he established a farm, market garden and dairy, which he called Alpha Farm, and the produce was transported to the Sydney markets. He also built a three-roomed homestead, which he named Curnell, after the Aboriginal name for the area, as he heard it. The farm was self sufficient, vegetable gardens and orchards as well as the dairy, irrigated from Cook’s Stream. When Captain Cook camped at Kurnell, he noted the number of small canoes used for fishing in the Bay. The first commercial fishing industry commenced in Botany Bay in 1790, mainly operating from the north shore of Botany Bay; however, isolated fishing shanties existed on the Kurnell side from its earliest years. James Birnie, had his caretaker send fish to the markets each day with other Alpha Farm produce. The manager also cut a shipping dock into the Botany Bay shore for harbouring boats at high tide (Salt 2000:25, 37, 77).

James Birnie, was declared insane in 1828, and his executors sold Curnell and Alpha Farm to John Connell, who owned the neighbouring land. Connell erected Alpha House on the foundations of

24

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Birnie’s Curnell, which was occupied by John Connell Jnr, who lived at Alpha House with his two nephews. John Connell Jnr began clearing and selling the ironbark, turpentine, blackbutt, mahogany and red cedar from both Kurnell and the Hacking River before the 1840s. He had a canal dug to Woolooware Bay, floated the timber into Botany Bay, from where it was transported to Sydney. (Salt 2000: 25, 26)

John Connell Laycock, one of John Connell’s nephews, inherited the Kurnell estate in 1849. By 1860, he had mortgaged most of his inheritance to a fellow Member of the Legislative Assembly, Thomas Holt. Following a series of financial disasters in 1861, Laycock was forced to sell his entire estate to Holt, which included the entire Kurnell peninsula, with the exception of the Government reserve on the eastern most portion of the headland (Salt 2000:28) (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Detail of Sutherland Parish map, undated, showing Kurnell peninsula land holdings (LPMA Parish Map Preservation Project No. 14033901). In 1882, Richardson & Wrench offered a subdivision of the Holt Sutherland Estate, known as The Maritime Township of Kurnell. The blocks were small, and were envisaged as weekender blocks rather than residences. However, the village did not begin to take its current form until after WWI. It was proclaimed the Village of Kurnell in 1933 (Salt 2000:123, 127).

6.1.3 Early Industrial Development

Thomas Holt was provided with convicts, runaway sailors and Aborigines to work on his various estates. He retained the Connell overseer, Mr Justice, but also appointed a Gweagal man, William Rowley, as his foreman (Salt 2000:29).

In 1868, Holt intensively cleared the Kurnell property of scrub and timber, and replaced it with imported grass seeds from Germany. He divided the land into 11 paddocks, with split-rail fences (some still visible at Towra Point), divided each of those lots with brushwood fences to make 60 smaller paddocks, and put sheep on the newly grassed land. When dingoes killed thousands of his sheep, a shooting party claimed to have killed 300 dingoes in the area. An outbreak of footrot saw

25

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment over 1,300 infected sheep being destroyed. Holt put cattle on the land; however, they devoured the grass to the extent that bare patches of the underlying dune sand increased. By 1900, the sand dunes of Kurnell were visible following years of deforestation and grazing. In an effort to control the movement of the dunes, Holt imported buffalo grass from America to supplement the native and imported grasses he had planted (Salt 2000:31).

The exposure of the dunes through deforestation led to the development of the sand extraction industry in Kurnell. The first large scale operations commenced in the 1930s, and whilst the NSW Government has publicly stated its commitment to phasing out sand extraction at Kurnell, the industry continues to operate (ABC, 2009).

Thomas Holt also established a number of oyster breeding grounds in Weeney and Gwawley Bays. By the 1850s a number of shanties were built on the Kurnell shoreline, and the fishermen’s salted catch was shipped from there to the markets in Sydney (ibid). By the 1880s, the area became popular as a holiday destination, primarily because of the quality of fishing and hunting available (Salt 2000:30).

Transport

Access to Kurnell was always difficult and the peninsula was usually reached by boat. From the late 1800s, the only public transport available to residents was the ferry services. One service ran from Sans Souci to Kurnell, whilst another ran from Kurnell to La Perouse. A wharf was constructed near the Cook’s monument to service the ferries, which was destroyed by storms in 1974.

The only road to and from Kurnell was a sandy track, maintained by the local residents and, from 1947, the Latta Bus Company, which operated a bus between Kurnell and Cronulla. The track ran along Botany Bay and over the sandhills, and the bus would frequently get bogged in the drifting sand, requiring the driver to dig the bus out, and passengers to help push the bus. The track was also subject to inundation during the spring’s king tides (Salt 2000:97112).

In the early 1950s, when Caltex commenced building the oil refinery, a sealed road was also constructed, and the ferry service became less frequent, until ceasing in 1965 (Salt 2000:103).

6.1.4 Caltex

The earliest developments of an oil-related industry in Sydney were the Australian Mineral Oil Company at Kerosene Bay (Balls Head) and the Colonial Oil Company at Pulpit Point during the second half of the nineteenth century. The facility at Pulpit Point ultimately became the property of Mobil Oil Australia in 1952 until the late 1970s when it was developed for residential use. The primary Shell Oil processing plant was established on Greenwich Point, Gore Cove, the Shell Refining (Aust.) Terminal, from the early twentieth century. British Petroleum (BP) and Caltex established a Storage and Coal Loader at Ball’s Head, Berry’s Bay, which had ceased operation by the 1990s (GML 2002:5).

In 1936, the Texas Oil Company (Aust.) Limited (Texaco) merged with Standard Oil Company of California (Socal) to become Caltex. The merger ensured that the company could operate in Australia, particularly during the war years, as at the time the Australian government prohibited wholly owned foreign companies from operating in the country. Texaco had, in 1928, acquired Ballast Point, Balmain, which was established as a storage facility and was the company’s first coastal terminal. The facility was expanded to include the only Grease and Lube Oil Blending plant in Australia, using equipment designed in the US. Petrol storage ceased when the company's refined oil terminal opened at Banksmeadow, Botany Bay. In 2002, Caltex sold the Ballast Point site, which has been developed as open public space.

26

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

On 25 July 1951, The Age reported:

Move to Build Oil Refinery – Caltex Oil (Australia) Ltd will ask for permission to build a refinery in Australia with a capacity to produce 750,000 gallons of refined oil a day. A spokesman for the company who announced this tonight said Caltex was examining sites for the refinery, which would cost about ₤25,000.00. The refinery would take in one million gallons of crude oil a day and produce petrol and by-products.

In 1951, Caltex approached the Cumberland County Council for permission to establish a major oil refinery at Kurnell, and in 1952, permission was granted. Prior to construction, Caltex established a subsidiary company known as the Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd, which became Caltex Australia, an Australian company operating independently of the parent company. In May 1995, the petroleum refining and marketing assets of Caltex Australia and Ampol Limited were merged.

During the construction of the Australian Oil Refinery site between 1952 and 1956, a Dutch dredging company brought a team of Dutch workers to operate the dredges. A residential hostel was erected near Bonna Point, Kurnell to house the workers. Following the completion of the Refinery, the Dutch company moved on to its next project, but its workers and their families elected to stay and settle permanently in Kurnell. A significant Dutch community remains today (Salt 2000:99-100).

During the peak of construction of the Kurnell Refinery, approximately 3,000 people were employed to drain swamps, clear scrub and install water and sewerage facilities. At the same time, a pipeline was constructed between Kurnell and Banksmeadow in order to transport the refined oil to the dockyards for sea transport. A wharf approximately a kilometre long was also constructed, capable of berthing ships with a cargo capacity of 60,000 dead weight tonnes was constructed projecting out into the Bay, and Captain Cook Drive was also constructed (Salt 2000:99-101).

27

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 6.2 1955 aerial showing the layout of the refinery site, with the wharf in Botany Bay, during the years following construction (Source: SSC)

In 1961, the Caltex Lubricating Oil Refinery was constructed adjacent to the Kurnell refinery (Figure 6.3). This refinery produced oils including greases, naphthenic products and heat treatment and waxes used in waterproofing, building products and cosmetics (Salt 2000:102).

28

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 6.3: 1961 Aerial photo showing Australian Oil Refinery and the adjacent Caltex Lubricating Oil Refinery (left).

The Industrial Development of Banksmeadow

Although the Botany Swamps was Sydney’s third water source, after the Tank Stream and Busby’s Bore, the early development of Botany was as an industrial area. In 1848, the NSW Parliament passed an Act banning all noxious industries in Sydney, with the result that these industries moved to the Botany area. In 1815, Simeon Lord had already built a small dam across a stream at Botany Swamps for the first woollen mill, creating Mill Pond. By the middle of the nineteenth century Simeon Lord and others had established a series of mill ponds and industries across the Botany, Waterloo and Alexandria areas. The banks of Shea’s Creek were lined with wool stores and wool washing, tanneries, foundries, brick works and soap making factories. Transportation of goods to the Sydney market was arduous and an alternative was planned. From the late 1880s Shea’s Creek was excavated to create a canal, Alexandra Canal, suitable for shipping to transport goods from the factories to Botany Bay. In 1902, Botany was declared a centre of ‘Noxious Industries’ and some industries, particularly the tanneries, began moving west to St Mary’s.

By 1914, there were 40 tanneries and wool scouring operations within the Botany Municipality (Sydney Morning Herald, 1914). Another significant industry in the area was the paper mill, known variously as the Australian Paper Mill, the Botany Paper Mill and APM Botany, was established in 1901 by the Federal Paper Mills (later Amcor), and continued to expand until well into the twentieth century (GBA, 2000: 9). Although no longer operating, is owners, Amcor, are currently refurbishing the site, which it envisages to be operational by the end of 2011 (Amcor, 2010).

29

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

The 1920s and 1930s saw a rise in manufacturing industries, such as the Davis Gelatine factory and the Kellogs plant, however fellmongering; the preparation of sheep skins for tanning, was still the dominant industry of the area (SMH, 1914). In 1929 a power station was also built at Bunnerong, approximately 1 km to the southeast of the Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal. The coal-burning power station supplied NSW with approximately one third of its electricity until the 1960s, when larger power stations were built to meet the State’s increasing power needs. The power station was kept as a stand-by facility until its gradual demolition in 1979-1994 (Randwick City Council, undated). During the 1940s, heavier industries such as ICI were established in the area (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4 1943 aerial showing the extensive industrial development of the area. The future Caltex Terminal is circled.

Transportation of goods and produce was facilitated by the opening in 1925 of the Botany Goods Line. It was constructed as an extension to the Metropolitan Goods Line to transport offal from the Homebush abattoirs to the tanneries in Botany. During WWII the government built Commonwealth sidings serviced many of the local industries; Hardies, Stewart & Lloyd’s steel distributors, Gelco (gelatine manufacturers) and Kellogg’s, as well as the Ampol, Total, BP and Esso oil companies. The Botany Marshalling Yards, adjacent to the Bunnerong Power station, was expanded to cater to the private sidings: Australian Oil Refineries (Caltex), Golden Fleece and Esso (Oakes 2008:6-14) (Figure 6.5).

30

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 6.5 The Botany Marshalling Yards (Source: Oakes 2008:17) During the 1940s, the Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Limited (BORAL), in partnership with Caltex, built their first refinery at Matraville, and in the 1950s Australian Oil Refineries (a subsidiary of Caltex) built the oil terminal on its present site at Banksmeadow (Neve, 1993:7). Currently, a number of subsurface pipelines connect the Banksmeadow Oil Terminal to the Kurnell Oil Refinery, the Oil Terminal at Silverwater, Sydney Airport and the Newcastle fuel line (URS, 2004:10-4).

Figure 6.6: Detail of map for village of Banks Meadow – purple shading shows the Australian Oil Refinery in 1956 prior to land reclamation (LPMA: Map No. 14058101 Parish Map Preservation Project).

31

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

The post-war period also saw Port Botany develop as a preferable cargo port to Sydney Harbour. In the 1970s major land reclamation took place, enabling the development of the dock at Port Botany, which in turn has led to the establishment of container and transport facilities. Sydney Ports Authority are currently in the process of redeveloping Port Botany to expand the port facilities to include additional berthing facilities, community facilities such as footpaths and slipways, environmental works such as the rehabilitation of Penrhyn Estuary and infrastructure to support the expansion. It is anticipated that these facilities will become operational from 2012 (Sydney Ports Authority, undated).

32

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

33

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

7 Physical Assessment The potential for Aboriginal and historic heritage issues associated Caltex Kurnell Refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal were assessed during a survey of the two sites on Monday 13 December 2010. Chris Langeluddecke, AMBS Project Manager, undertook the Aboriginal assessment. AMBS Senior Project Manager, Jennie Lindbergh, assessed both sites and listed heritage items within the immediate vicinity of the proposed works to determine the potential for impacts on identified heritage values.

For safety reasons, photography at both sites is limited. At the Kurnell Refinery, photography was permitted from road areas only, while photography within the Banksmeadow Terminal is prohibited. 7.1 Aboriginal Heritage 7.1.1 Survey Methodology

An Aboriginal heritage field survey of the study area was undertaken on 13 December 2010 by AMBS archaeologist Christopher Langeluddecke, accompanied by Aboriginal community representatives Yvonne Simms of La Perouse Botany Bay Corporation, Scott Franks of Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council and, at Banksmeadow Terminal only, Gordon Morton of Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments. The fieldwork methodology, context for the assessment and available mapping information were discussed with the Aboriginal community representatives prior to fieldwork. Maps of the study area and proposed development were made available to all participants to guide the field assessment. The findings of the survey and recommendations were discussed with all representatives in the field, and any input received from the representatives during the field survey has been incorporated into this assessment.

The aims of the survey were to: • archaeologically survey all potential development impact areas; • record any Aboriginal heritage sites/objects within the potential impact areas; • determine any areas of potential Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity within the potential impact area; and • identify places or areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community.

Where Aboriginal artefacts were observed within the study area, notes were to be made regarding their type, size and material, and the site was to be recorded, including the environmental setting and details of any disturbance to archaeological material in the site’s vicinity. Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) coordinates were taken by a handheld Garmin Oregon 300 GPS unit, and photographs of sites, artefacts and the general study area were taken using a Pentax K10 digital SLR camera.

7.1.2 Survey Results – Kurnell Refinery

No Aboriginal heritage sites, objects, places or areas of archaeological potential were identified within the Kurnell refinery study area. The Caltex Kurnell refinery is a well-established industrial area, and contains no undisturbed natural landforms. The area has been levelled and built-up to allow construction of the refinery, and no original soil landscapes are visible within the refinery boundaries.

Survey coverage data was gathered during the archaeological field survey to allow quantification of ground exposure and visibility, as adverse observation conditions can affect the detection of Aboriginal sites and material. This data does not reflect the extent of the area that was physically surveyed, but represents an estimate of the area of ground surface examined, and presents an estimate of the effectiveness of the survey, given environmental conditions and ground visibility. Survey coverage

34

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment data is presented in accordance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Survey Reporting section of DECCW’s Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Survey coverage data for the current study is presented in Table 7.1, and survey units are described in detail below. Table 7.1 Kurnell Refinery study area survey coverage. Survey Survey Survey Effective Effective Survey unit unit Visibility Exposure Landform unit area coverage coverage Unit length width (%) (%) (m2) area (m2) (%) (m) (m) 1 Flat 220 10 2,200 20% 5% 22 1% 2 Flat 170 10 1,700 10% 20% 34 2% 3 Flat 270 10 2,700 10% 20% 54 2% Table 7.2 Kurnell Refinery landform summary. Area effectively Percent of landform Landform Landform area (m2) surveyed (m2) effectively surveyed (%) Flat 6,600 110 1.7%

Survey Unit 1 – Road 7

Survey Unit assessed an area within the boundary of the Kurnell Refinery, where it is proposed to install the new pumping facilities and approximately 220m of pipeline. The subsurface pipeline, approximately 10 inches in diameter, will be installed adjacent to a service road identified as Road 7, following the refinery boundary. The landform into which the pipe will be installed is entirely constructed, and is approximately two metres higher than the natural ground level, visible outside the refinery boundary 20m to the east (see Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.1 Kurnell pipeline location within refinery grounds. The proposed pipeline will be installed to the left of the road. View to north east.

35

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.2 Kurnell pipeline location within refinery grounds. The proposed pipeline will be installed to the east of the road. View to south west.

Survey Unit 2 & 3 – Established Pipeline Right of Way

Survey units 2 and 3 assessed a right of way owned and maintained by Caltex, within which underground pipelines have been installed since the construction of the refinery. A number of pipelines are currently installed within an area approximately 20 m in width, and the soils within the easement have been repeatedly excavated and reworked to allow installation and maintenance since the 1950s. The proposed pipeline installation will be installed within the previously disturbed area, directly adjacent to the currently installed pipes.

The easement is 50 m wide in Survey Unit 2, and 80 m wide in Survey Unit 3. It is a levelled, cleared and grassed area between residential properties, leading from the refinery to Kurnell Wharf, and contains a single unsealed access/maintenance track (see Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4).

Highly broken and fragmentary shell material was observed in small exposures adjacent to the maintenance track. This shell material on the surface of highly disturbed soils that have been repeatedly reworked to allow access to the underground infrastructure, and it is not possible to determine if they represent cultural or natural shell deposits. Given that the area has been subject to initial clearing and levelling of the natural landform followed by repeated maintenance excavations, it is likely that any cultural deposits that were present in this location have been highly damaged and distributed across the landscape, and are unlikely to retain any archaeological integrity or significant archaeological information.

36

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.3 Kurnell pipeline location within easement. View to south east.

Figure 7.4 Kurnell pipeline location within easement. View to north west.

7.1.3 Survey Results - Banksmeadow Terminal

No Aboriginal heritage sites, objects, places or areas of archaeological potential were identified within the Banksmeadow Terminal study area. The Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal is a well-established industrial area, and contains no undisturbed natural landforms. The area has been levelled and built- up to allow construction of the terminal, and no natural soils are visible within the refinery boundaries. The entirely of the proposed development impact area is covered by concrete, asphalt or small maintained lawn areas, and there was no ground visibility or exposure observed during survey.

37

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

7.2 Historic Physical Analysis & Impact Assessment The Caltex Kurnell Refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal were established during the 1950s and as such are well established industrial complexes with an ongoing tradition of maintenance and upgrades (see Figure 7.1). Both sites are characterised by the layering of industrial infrastructure associated with oil refining and transfer.

7.2.1 Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal

The Banksmeadow Terminal is entered via Penrhyn Road to the west, and is defined by the Patrick Container terminal to its west and south, the Sydenham–Botany Bay Goods Line and Botany Road to the north. The terminal sits within a heavily industrialised landscape. The scope of works comprises the construction and installation of booster pumps, one coalescer, valves and pumps, and associated infrastructure (see above Section 1.3). These facilities are to be installed wholly within the facility and will not be visible from beyond the site perimeter, other than transient views from Botany Road, which is elevated above the proposed works site. The pipeline to the Banksmeadow Terminal from the Kurnell Refinery is not being upgraded or altered in any way and as such, no other works are proposed for the site.

The Botany Marshalling Yards on Beauchamp Street is the only listed heritage item within the near vicinity of the Banksmeadow Terminal; however, its location beyond Botany Road is such that there will be no impact on its identified heritage significance.

There are no heritage constraints on the upgrade project.

7.2.2 Caltex Kurnell Refinery

The Kurnell Refinery is a large industrial site, accessed via Solander Street, occupying a large area of the Kurnell Peninsula (Figure 7.5). To the north, south and east is the Botany Bay National Park and to the west, Quibray Bay incorporating Towra Point Aquatic Reserve Sanctuary Zone.

38

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.5 View to the west of Kurnell refinery from Solander Road to two fluid catalytic crackers. The scope of works within the refinery includes the installation of two transfer pumps, two coalescors, various valves and associated infrastructure adjacent to Tanks 166 and 168 on Road 7 (Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.6 View along Road 7 to the south with Tank 157 to the left and Tank 168 to the right (left), and north, with Tank 165 to the right (right). The replacement KBL will run from the proposed pumps along Road 7 to join existing pipelines adjacent to Tank 202 (Figure 7.7). The pipeline to Kurnell Wharf is within a right of way aligned to the northwest passing across vacant Caltex land and beneath Cook Street, Captain Cook Drive and Prince Charles Parade (Figure 7.7 and Figure 7.8). On Prince Charles Parade, opposite the Caltex Refinery Wharf is a Caltex facility and yard, which marks the end of the pipeline right of way (Figure 7.9).

39

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.7 The existing pipelines adjacent to Tank 202 on Road 7.

Figure 7.8 View northwest to Cook Street from Road 7 of the pipeline alignment.

40

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.9 The Caltex facility on Prince Charles Parade. The pipeline arrives at the Caltex Oil Refinery Wharf, which juts into Botany Bay for approximately 1 km from Silver Beach, directly to the south of Molineaux Point on the opposite side of the Bay (Figure 7.10).

Figure 7.10 The Caltex Oil Refinery Wharf at Silver Beach.

41

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

The Silver Beach and Roadway, identified as a heritage item on the Kurnell SEPP, is reminiscent of beachside holiday developments of the post-war era (Figure 7.11 and Figure 7.12).

Figure 7.11 View to the east along Prince Charles Parade. Note imprinted patterns in the footpath.

Figure 7.12 View west along Prince Charles Parade.

42

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Further to the east is an entry to the Botany Bay National Park, and National Heritage listed Kurnell Peninsula Headland, within which are the majority of the heritage items listed on the Kurnell SEPP on Cape Solander Drive (Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14).

Figure 7.13 Entry to Botany Bay National Park and Kurnell Peninsula Headland. The Cook Obelisk, marking Captain Cook’s Landing Place, is on the headland beyond.

Figure 7.14 View to the Cook Obelisk.

43

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

7.2.3 Impact Assessment – Kurnell Refinery

The Caltex Kurnell Refinery was established in 1952 as the Australian Oil Refinery, which is identified as a heritage item on the SEPP for Kurnell Peninsula. Also, within the vicinity of the Kurnell Wharf are the nationally significant Kurnell Peninsula Headland, and associated Cook’s Landing Place, as well as the locally listed Silver Beach and roadway. The scope of works associated with the proposed upgrade and installation of the KBL comprise three discrete areas, which are considered below:

1. The construction of a facility to house newly installed pumps and valves and associated infrastructure, which is consistent with the ongoing requirements of an operational oil refinery. The construction is wholly within the boundary of the Refinery site and as such there will not be an adverse impact on the identified historic and technical significance of the site.

2. Excavation of the existing pipeline trench within the existing right of way, laying the new KBL into this trench, and re-covering, will not expose significant archaeological relics. There will be a short term impact on the amenity of the local environment, which will be mitigated following works and natural re-turfing of pipeline trenches.

3. The proposal to run an additional new pipeline along the Caltex Refinery Wharf has the potential to have an adverse impact on the national heritage values of the Kurnell Peninsula Headland and the historic and aesthetic values of Cook’s Landing Place and, the local heritage significance of Silver Beach and roadway.

The EPBC Act protects items and places on the NHL from actions that will have, or are likely to have a significant impact on the national heritage values of the item or place. Where an action is deemed to be significant the matter must be referred to the Minister who will decide whether the action requires further assessment, and if necessary approval under the EPBC Act. The Kurnell Peninsula Headland is in the vicinity of the Caltex Refinery Wharf and as such the potential for adverse impacts on the national heritage values of this place must be considered.

Adding a new pipeline to the extant Caltex pipelines along the Caltex Refinery Wharf will add visual weight to the wharf; however, this should not impede or disrupt the existing aesthetic values, views or amenity of the local environment. Views from the Peninsula to the wharf itself include the wider Botany Bay industrial landscape and as such the new pipeline will not have a significant impact on the national heritage values of the Kurnell Peninsula Headland (Figure 7.15). The construction of the KBL does not constitute an action requiring the advice or approval of the Minister.

There is likely to be a short term disruption to the amenity of the Silver Beach and roadway during construction; however, the local heritage significance of the beach and roadway will be maintained.

44

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Figure 7.15 Two views to the north from the Kurnell Peninsula to the extensive industrial environment.

45

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

8 Assessing Heritage Significance The assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance has been undertaken in accordance with DECCW guidelines. Historic heritage significance assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the criteria developed in NSW for identifying items and places having State or local significance (SHR criteria). However, the criteria for assessing Aboriginal and historic significance are derived from the Burra Charter criteria of aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for assessing cultural significance for past, present and future generations. 8.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment A primary step in the process of Aboriginal cultural heritage management is the assessment of significance. The two types of significance considered are cultural and scientific; both are of equal importance when conducting a heritage assessment and are based on the DECCW guidelines in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (NPWS 1997b). Cultural significance concerns the value(s) of a site, or feature, to a particular community group, in this case the local Aboriginal community. As this is a preliminary study, Aboriginal community consultation has not been undertaken and therefore the assessment of cultural significance will need to be carried out in the next stage of the project. Presented below is the preliminary assessment of scientific significance.

8.1.1 Scientific Significance

Professional guidelines for the assessment of significance of Aboriginal sites, objects and places discuss two types of significance: cultural significance and archaeological significance (NPWS 1997a:21-29; 1997b:5-11).

Scientific significance is assessed using criteria to evaluate the contents of a site, state of preservation, integrity of deposits, representativeness of the site type, rarity/uniqueness and potential to answer research questions on past human behaviour (NPWS 1997b:5). The NPW guidelines recommend the following criteria for assessing archaeological significance:

• Representativeness – all sites are representative of those in their class (site type/subtype); however, this issue relates to whether particular sites should be conserved to ensure that a representative sample of the archaeological record is retained. Representativeness is based on an understanding of the regional archaeological context in terms of site variability in and around the study area, the resources already conserved and the relationship of sites across the landscape; • Rarity – defines how distinctive a site may be, based on an understanding of what is unique in the archaeological record and consideration of key archaeological research questions (i.e. some sites are considered more important due to their ability to provide scientific or cultural information). It may be assessed at local, regional, state and national levels; and • Archaeological Research Potential – significance may be based on the potential of a site or landscape to explain past human behaviour. For example, hearths with charcoal have the potential to be dated and thus contribute to the chronology of occupation in a region. Rockshelters with art have the potential to contribute to our understanding of art motifs or styles in a region.

Assessment of Scientific Significance

No Aboriginal heritage sites, places or objects were identified within the Kurnell Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal study areas. No areas of potential archaeological deposit were identified within the study areas. The proposed project impact areas do not contain Aboriginal heritage sites,

46

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment have no potential to contain subsurface archaeological deposits, and are therefore of no scientific significance.

8.1.2 Cultural Significance

This area of assessment concerns the value(s) of a site or feature to a particular community group – in this case the local Aboriginal community or communities. Aspects of cultural significance are relevant to sites, items and landscapes that are important, or have become important, to the local Aboriginal community. This importance involves both traditional links with specific areas as well as an overall concern by Aboriginal people for sites and landscapes generally and their future protection. Aboriginal cultural significance may include social, spiritual, historic and archaeological values. Aboriginal cultural significance assessments can only be made by the relevant Aboriginal communities.

Aboriginal communities who were consulted throughout this project have indicated that there are no specific cultural significances attached to the Kurnell Refinery or Banksmeadow Terminal study areas. 8.2 Historic Heritage Significance The physical evidence of past activities is a valuable resource that is embodied in the fabric, setting, history and broader environment of an item, place or archaeological site. The value of this resource to a community can be evaluated by assessing its cultural and natural heritage values. 'Cultural significance' and 'heritage value' are terms used to express the intangible and tangible values of an item, place or archaeological site, and the response that it evokes in the community. Assessment of significance provides the framework for the development of conservation and management strategies, to protect an item or place for future generations. The criteria for assessing heritage value or significance are derived from the Burra Charter criteria of aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for assessing cultural significance for past, present and future generations.

The identification of items on heritage registers and lists demonstrates the value of those items to the community. The criteria for inclusion on the NHL, is based on the ability for an item or place to demonstrate ‘outstanding heritage value’, whereas the SHR criteria assesses the ‘significance’ of an item or place (see Appendix C for a Table of Correspondence of NHL and SHR criteria). In NSW, an item or place will be considered to be of State or local heritage significance if, in the opinion of the Heritage Council, it meets one or more of the assessment criteria.

As identified in Section 2 ‘Statutory Context’ the Kurnell Peninsula Headland is listed on the NHL, as the place where Captain James Cook first landed on Australian shores and encountered the local Aboriginals (see Appendix A for NHL Gazettal). The NHL curtilage for the Kurnell Peninsula Headland includes areas also listed on the SHR and the Kurnell SEPP 1989.

Those items and places of local heritage within the near vicinity of the KBL project are:

• Silver Beach and Roadway within the Sutherland Shire LGA and identified in the Heritage Schedule of the Kurnell SEPP 1989 • Botany Marshalling Yards within the Botany LGA and identified on the Heritage Schedule of the Botany LEP 1995.

There are no other heritage items, and no items or places were identified as having potential for inclusion on any heritage registers or lists, within the near vicinity of the KBL project.

47

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

9 Impact Assessment The following conclusions are based on the statutory requirements and the results of the Aboriginal and historic background research, Aboriginal community consultation and archaeological field survey and physical assessment. 9.1 Aboriginal Heritage No Aboriginal archaeological sites, objects or places, or areas of archaeological potential or Aboriginal sensitivity, were identified within the study area. The results of the archaeological survey of the study area conducted with representatives of the local Aboriginal community confirmed extensive disturbance from industrial development and associated ongoing maintenance of subsurface infrastructure, and it is therefore considered highly unlikely that evidence of previous occupation by Aboriginal people remains within the study area.

The proposed development will not impact on any Aboriginal heritage sites, objects or places, or areas of archaeological potential or Aboriginal sensitivity. No further Aboriginal heritage assessment is required for the current proposed KBL upgrade works. 9.2 Historic Heritage The aim of the KBL project is to secure an increased and more reliable jet fuel supply to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport thereby ensuring the ongoing viability and success of the airport business. The background research and physical assessment of the Caltex Oil Refinery site, associated Refinery Wharf at Kurnell and Banksmeadow Terminal and their local environments has determined that there are no heritage constraints on the project.

In particular, the proposed development on the Caltex Refinery Wharf will not have a significant impact on the gazetted NHL values of the Kurnell Peninsula Headland.

48

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

49

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Bibliography Amcor, (2010) Botany Paper Mill Upgrade: Community Update #12 – July 2010, retrieved on 15 December 2010 from http://media.amcor.com/documents/Amcor-community- notification12Jul10.pdf.

Attenbrow V (1981) Mangrove Creek Dam – Salvage Excavation Project. Consultancy report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Department of Public Works.

Attenbrow V (1990) The Port Jackson Archaeological Project – Report on Stage I. Research report to Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Attenbrow V (2003) Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the Archaeological and Historical Records. University of NSW Press Ltd, Sydney.

Attenbrow V (2004) What’s Changing: Population size or land-use patterns? The Archaeology of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin. Pandanus Books, Australian National University, Canberra.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2009) Kurnell Residents ‘endangered by sand mining’, News article dated 6 January 2009, retrieved on 10 December 2010 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/06/2460089.htm.

Boral Limited, (undated) Boral – From the Ground Up: The First 50 years – Chapter 1 - 1946-1949, retrieved on 16 December 2010 from http://www.boral.com/history/Ch1_1.html.

Biosis (2006) The Meeting Place Heritage Precinct – Botany Bay National Park: Heritage Assessment, unpublished report to the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Bryan J H (1966) Sydney 1:250 000 Geological Map Sheet SI 56-5, 3rd ed., Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.

Byrne, D (1987a) Test Excavation and Assemblage Analysis at Quibray Bay #2, An Open Site at Kurnell, NSW, unpublished report to Monier Ltd & Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd.

Byrne, D (1987b) Test Excavation of Quibray Bay #1, A Midden Site on the Kurnell Peninsula, NSW, unpublished report to Monier Ltd.

Chapman G A & Murphy C L (1989) Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Cook, J (Capt) (1770) Journal (3 May 1770), retrieved on 9 December 2010 from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700503.html.

DECCW (undated) NSW Wildlife Atlas, retrieved on 30 November 2010 from http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlasSpecies.jsp.

DECCW (2010) Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW.

Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation.

50

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Dickson, F P (1971) Aboriginal Relics at Boat Harbour and the adjoining reserve, unpublished report to National Parks & Wildlife Service.

Dickson, F P (1974) Excavation of an Aboriginal Midden at Boat Harbour, unpublished report to National Parks & Wildlife Service.

Dickson, F P (1975) Aboriginal Relics at Boat Harbour and the adjoining reserve, unpublished report to National Parks & Wildlife Service.

Dickson, F P (1980) Aboriginal Relics at Potter Point, unpublished report to National Parks & Wildlife Service.

Godden Mackay Logan (2002) ‘Ballast Point Industrial Heritage Items’, in John Graham and Associates. 2004 Ballast Point Statement of Heritage Impact. Report prepared for McRoss Developments Pty Ltd

Graham Brooks & Associates (2000) Preliminary Heritage Assessment – Amcor Paper Australia Botany Mill, unpublished report to Amcor Paper Australia.

Hazelton P A & Tille P J (1990) Soil Landscapes of the Wollongong-Port Hacking 1:100 000 Sheet, Soil Conservation Service, Sydney.

Irish, P (2007) Final Report on Aboriginal Archaeological Test Excavations – Meeting Place Precinct, Botany Bay National Park, Kurnell, NSW, unpublished report to DECC and the Government Architects Office.

Koettig M (1996) Hornsby Shire Aboriginal Heritage Study. Consultancy report to HSC.

Kohen J (1986) Prehistoric Settlement in the Western Cumberland Plain: Resources, Environment and Technology, unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Kohen J L, Stockton E D & Williams M A (1984) Shaws Creek KII rockshelter, a prehistoric occupation site in the Blue Mountains piedmont, eastern New South Wales, Archaeology in Oceania 19:57-72.

Lampert R J (1971) Burrill Lake and Currarong; Coastal Sites in Southern New South Wales. Terra Australis, Vol. 1. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) Parish Map Preservation Project Information. Retrieved on 25 November 2010 from: http://parishmaps.lands.nsw.gov.au/pmap.html

LPMA (2010) Spatial Information Exchange Viewer. Retrieved on 25 November 2010 from http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au.

McDonald J (1994) Dreamtime Superhighway: An Analysis of Sydney Rock Art and Prehistoric Information Exchange, unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Prehistory and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra.

McDonald J & Rich E (1993) Archaeological Investigations for Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project [Stage 1] Works along Caddies, Smalls and Second Ponds Creek, Rouse Hill and Parklea, NSW, final report on Test Excavation Program. Volumes I and II. Report to the Rouse Hill Joint Venture.

51

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Nanson G C, Young R W & Stockton E (1987) Chronology and Paleoenvironment of the Cranebrook Terrace [near Sydney] Containing Artefacts more than 40,000 Years Old, Archaeology in Oceania 22:72- 78.

Navin Officer (2003) Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Proposed Port Botany Expansion – An assessment of maritime and terrestrial archaeological potential, unpublished report to Sydney Ports Corporation.

Neve M H (1993) Sutherland Shire Studies No. 4 – The Development of Commerce & Industry, Sutherland Shire Council, Sutherland.

NSW Heritage Branch (undated) Port Botany Old Government Wharf Remains, entry on State Heritage database retrieved on 13 December 2010 from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm?itemid=4560021.

Oakes J (2008) Sydney’s Forgotten Goods Railways. Australian Royal Historical Society.

Orica (undated) Botany Groundwater Cleanup Project, retrieved on 29 November 2010 from http://www.oricabotanytransformation.com/?page=2&project=27.

Randwick City Council (undated) Bunnerong Power Station retrieved on 16 December 2010 from http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/About_Randwick/Heritage/A_to_Z_of_people_and_places/Bunner ong_Power_Station/indexdl_103.aspx.

Rich E (1986) Yarra Point Site 45-6-292 – Archaeological Investigation, unpublished report to Randwick City Council

Rose G (1966) Wollongong 1:250 000 Geological Map Sheet S1 56-9, 2nd ed., Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.

Salt D F (2000) Kurnell: Birthplace of Modern Australia, Clarion House, Como West.

Stockton E (1993) Archaeology of the Blue Mountains, in E Stockton (ed.), Blue Mountains Dreaming: Aboriginal Heritage, p23-52. Three Sisters Productions, Springwood.

Stockton E D & W Holland (1974) Cultural sites and their environment in the Blue Mountains. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 9(1):36-65.

Sutherland Shire Council (undated) Traditional Landowners, retrieved on 16 December 2010 from http://www.sutherland.nsw.gov.au/ssc/home.nsf/AllDocs/RWPD7F788C8EBBED143CA2575F5000 13BC6?OpenDocument.

Sutherland Shire Council (2009) Sutherland Shire Council – Kurnell Township Flood Study, retrieved on 29 November 2010 from http://www.sutherland.nsw.gov.au/ssc/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/kurnell-flood-study- final-may-2009_Part1.pdf/$file/kurnell-flood-study-final-may-2009_Part1.pdf.

Sydney Morning Herald (1885) Sir Joseph Banks Pavilion and Pleasure Gardens, in Sydney Morning Herald, 7 April 1885, retrieved on 13 December 2010 from

52

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13579342?searchTerm=Sir%20Joseph%20Banks%20Hotel%2 0Botany&searchLimits=.

Sydney Morning Herald (1914): Progress of the Suburbs: Conclusion of the Series – Botany and Mascot in Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 1914, retrieved on 15 December 2010 from http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/15500732?searchTerm=tanneries%20wool%20scours%20Bota ny&searchLimits=l-title=The+Sydney+Morning+Herald...|titleid%3A35|||sortby=dateAsc.

Sydney Ports Authority (undated) Port Botany Expansion – Project Overview retrieved on 16 December 2010 from http://www.sydneyports.com.au/port_development/port_botany_expansion_project/project_overview

Sydney Water (2010): Heritage Item – Botany Wetlands, Sydney Water Heritage Register, retrieved on 15 December 2010 from http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Sustainability/OurHeritageAssets/_item_view.cfm?hi=4570025.

URS Australia Pty Limited (2004) Botany Groundwater Cleanup Project – Environmental Impact Statement, unpublished report to Orica Australia Pty Limited.

53

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Appendix A Heritage Inventories

• National Heritage Listing for Kurnell Peninsula Headland

• Botany Local Environmental Plan – Botany Marshalling Yards

54

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

55

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

56

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

57

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

58

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

59

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

60

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

61

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix B Log of Aboriginal Community Consultation

62

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

AMBS Date membe Organisation Contact Organisation Method Comment r Searched Botany Bay and Sutherland LGAs. DTAC Jenna 1/11/2010 AMBS Website NNTT Website NC97/8 is the only active Weston claimant application, in Botany Bay LGA. Notification of project and request for contact details of Jenna Aboriginal groups. Also 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Email Weston asked them to identify whether LPLALC wished to be consulted. Kashana Notification of project and Jenna National Native 2/11/2010 AMBS Cohen- Email request for contact details of Weston Title Tribunal McMeekin Aboriginal groups. Notification of project and Jenna Botany Bay City 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Email request for contact details of Weston Council Aboriginal groups. Automatically-generated Jenna Botany Bay City 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Email email saying they'd received Weston Council my email. Laurel Notification of project and Jenna Alexander/ 2/11/2010 AMBS DECCW Fax request for contact details of Weston Miranda Aboriginal groups. Morton Office of the Notification of project and Jenna Registrar, 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Fax request for contact details of Weston Aboriginal Land Aboriginal groups. Rights Act Notification of project and Jenna 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Fax request for contact details of Weston Aboriginal groups. Sent text for ad, to be Jenna placed 4 November 2010; 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Fairfax Media Email Weston response date 18 November 2010. Automatically-generated Jenna 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Fairfax Media Email email saying they'd received Weston my email. Notification of project and Jenna 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Mail request for contact details of Weston Aboriginal groups. Notification of project and Jenna Sutherland Shire 2/11/2010 AMBS N/A Email request for contact details of Weston Council Aboriginal groups. Jenna Suzanne Botany Bay City 2/11/2010 AMBS Email Identified LPLALC. Weston Wren Council Jenna Valerie 3/11/2010 AMBS Fairfax Media Email Ad proof. Weston Manukau Jenna Valerie Asked for a couple of 3/11/2010 AMBS Fairfax Media Email Weston Manukau changes to the proof. Jenna Valerie 3/11/2010 AMBS Fairfax Media Email Faxed revised proof. Weston Manukau Jenna Valerie Sent confirmation of revised 3/11/2010 AMBS Fairfax Media Email Weston Manukau proof. Confirmed that the ad Jenna Valerie 3/11/2010 AMBS Fairfax Media Email would go into tomorrow's Weston Manukau paper. Rang to check that fax was Jenna Miranda received. She said it was, 3/11/2010 AMBS DECCW Phone Weston Morton and her response is in the mail. Notification of project and Jenna 3/11/2010 AMBS Sandra Lee DTAC Email invitation to register Weston interest. Notification of project and Jenna Gordon 3/11/2010 AMBS DACHA Fax invitation to register Weston Morton interest.

63

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Identification of a claimant application by DTAC (Gordon Morton now with DACHA) in Botany Bay LGA. Identification of a non- Kashana claimant application by Jenna National Native 4/11/2010 AMBS Cohen- Email Gandangara LALC in Weston Title Tribunal McMeekin Sutherland LGA. However, the land to which the application applies is near Menai. It is known that the study area is in La Perouse LALC lands. Identified himself as a direct descendant of Dharawal Jenna Dharawal Tribe owners of land from 4/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Fax Weston Custodian Watsons Bay to Wollongong. Asked for invitation to meeting. Registration of interest. Jenna Troy Koomurri 4/11/2010 AMBS Email Identified himself as Weston Jennings Management Wiradjuri, born in Kurnell. Jenna Dharawal Tribe Email to ask which project 4/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Email Weston Custodian his fax referred to. Letter identifying the following groups as potentially having an interest in the study area: Jenna 5/11/2010 AMBS Lou Ewins DECCW Mail LPLALC, Yarrawalk, La Weston Perouse Botany Bay Corporation and Woronora Plateau Gundungara Elders Council. Notification of project and Jenna Tocomwall/ 5/11/2010 AMBS Scott Franks Mail asked whether they would Weston Yarrawalk like to be consulted. Yvonne Notification of project and Jenna 5/11/2010 AMBS Simms/Norm LPBBC/WPGEC Mail asked whether they would Weston a Simms like to be consulted. Identified that there are no RAOs, and said that LPLALC Jenna Courtney 10/11/2010 AMBS ORALRA Post may be able to provide Weston Field contact details for organisations. Yvonne Jenna Registration of interest, by 15/11/2010 AMBS Simms/Norm LPBBC/WPGEC Phone Weston both groups. a Simms Registration of interest, but only for Banksmeadow, as Jenna Celestine 16/11/2010 AMBS DACHA Phone their area only goes to the Weston Everingham north of the Georges River and Botany Bay. Identified Kurranulla Jenna 16/11/2010 AMBS Paul Styman SSC Email Aboriginal Corporation as a Weston potential stakeholder. Kurranulla Notification of project and Deb 17/11/2010 AMBS n/a Aboriginal Mail invitation to register interest Farina Corporation by 1 December 2010 Phone call to ask about his fax. He said that he'd seen an ad in the Koori Mail. I said we hadn't placed any ads in the Koori Mail lately. He said that it was about sites in Kurnell. He said that Jenna Dharawal Tribe he wanted to be invited to 19/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone Weston Custodian meetings about sites between Kurnell/Botany Bay and Audley, to discuss what's happening. I said I wasn't sure what meeting he was referring to. He said he'd fax me a copy of the newspaper ad he'd seen. 64

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Provision of methodology; Jenna Gordon 19/11/2010 AMBS DACHA Fax requesting comments by Weston Morton 10/12/2010. Provision of methodology; Jenna 19/11/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Email requesting comments by Weston 10/12/2010. Provision of methodology; Jenna Troy Koomurri 19/11/2010 AMBS Email requesting comments by Weston Jennings Management 10/12/2010. Provision of methodology; Jenna 19/11/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Mail requesting comments by Weston 10/12/2010. Yvonne Provision of methodology; Jenna 19/11/2010 AMBS Simms/Norm LPBBC/WPGEC Mail requesting comments by Weston a Simms 10/12/2010. Kurranulla Provision of methodology; Jenna Deanna 19/11/2010 AMBS Aboriginal Mail requesting comments by Weston Schrieber Corporation 10/12/2010. Rang to see if he'd been able to fax the ad. He said Jenna Dharawal Tribe he'd try to fax it through 23/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone Weston Custodian this morning, but that he'd give me a call back as he was on the other line. Ken rang to say he wanted to be consulted on projects in his area. I said that we follow consultation guidelines on our projects, so he would need to contact DECCW to register to be consulted for his area. I said I thought he may have seen Jenna Dharawal Tribe 23/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone out ad for Kurnell, although Weston Custodian it wasn't in the Koori Mail. He said he wanted to register his interest in the Kurnell project and I said I would fax him project information and a methodology, to the fax from which he sent his original letter. Provision of methodology; Jenna Dharawal Tribe 23/11/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Fax requesting comments by Weston Custodian 10/12/2010. Asked about the date for feedback. He thought the feedback form required it by 19 November. I said the form noted that the Jenna Troy Koomurri methodology letter had 23/11/2010 AMBS Phone Weston Jennings Management been sent on 19 November, but the response date was 10 December. He said they were putting something together now, and he would email it through. Rang to ask their rates and Jenna Celestine availability. Celestine said 7/12/2010 AMBS DACHA Phone Weston Everingham they're available Monday but not Tuesday. Tried to call to check on Jenna their rates and their 7/12/2010 AMBS N/A La Perouse LALC Phone Weston availability for 13 or 14 December. Phone rang out. Rang to ask their rates and availability. David said he's Jenna 7/12/2010 AMBS David Ingrey La Perouse LALC Phone need to check on Weston availability, and asked me to email him the information.

65

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Said that WPGEC is currently Yvonne under the auspices of LPBBC, Jenna 7/12/2010 AMBS Simms/Norm LPBBC/WPGEC Phone and that they are available Weston a Simms on Monday, Thursday and Friday next week. Rang to ask about rates and availability, but Tony doesn't have any rates. I spoke with him about his interest in the project, and he said he mainly does dance and performance, and wasn't sure if he could be of help on the project, but his wife showed him the ad and said he should get involved. He said that he is Wiradjuri, who are traditionally from the Wellington area and covered about 80% of NSW, and he grew up in Kurnell and knows that there are lots of sites and significant Aboriginal places. He said Jenna Troy Koomurri that the Wiradjuri signed a 7/12/2010 AMBS Phone Weston Jennings Management treaty in the 1800s with Governor Brisbane at Parramatta, and he's currently working on getting the treaty recognised, in the Supreme Court. He said that he considers all of Australia to be sacred land for Aboriginal people, and he'd like more preservation of land, rather than so much development. He said he knows Neville Williams, and Russell Dawson, and would ask them about commenting on the methodology and report. He said he'll get me something by Friday, as per the deadline. Rang to ask about rates and availability. Ken is free on Jenna Dharawal Tribe Monday 13 December, but 7/12/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone Weston Custodian his list of rates was at home so he asked me to call him back about 4pm. Rang back but he said he put his list of rates in his car for when I called him back, Jenna Dharawal Tribe 7/12/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone but then his son took his car, Weston Custodian so he said he'd call me back tomorrow to let me know the rates. Tried ringing several times about rates, but phone went Jenna Dharawal Tribe 9/12/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone straight to messagebank. Weston Custodian Left message asking him to get back to me about rates. Jenna Invitation to field survey on 9/12/2010 AMBS David Ingrey La Perouse LALC Email Weston 13 December. Jenna Dharawal Tribe Fax&Ema Invitation to field survey on 9/12/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Weston Custodian il 13 December. Yvonne Jenna Invitation to field survey on 9/12/2010 AMBS Simms/Norm LPBBC/WPGEC Fax Weston 13 December. a Simms Jenna Celestine Invitation to field survey on 9/12/2010 AMBS DACHA Fax Weston Everingham 13 December.

66

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Agreement with methodology. Also provided comments as per our phone Jenna Troy Koomurri discussion, talking about the 9/12/2010 AMBS Email Weston Jennings Management treaty and saying they oppose all development because all of Australia is sacred land. Jenna Dharawal Tribe 10/12/2010 AMBS Ken Foster Phone Tried to call; left message. Weston Custodian Norma called to confirm Chris Yvonne that one representative 10/12/2010 Langelu AMBS LPBBC/WPGEC Phone Simms would be coming from both ddecke LPBBC and WPGEC Glenn Dharawal Tribe Asked Jenna to call him 7/01/2011 AMBS Ken Foster Phone Muir Custodian back. Returned his call. He asked if there was anything else happening at Kurnell, and I Jenna Dharawal Tribe 10/01/2011 AMBS Ken Foster Phone said that ithere wasn't at the Weston Custodian moment. He asked me to let him know if there was anything in the future. Chris Letter enclosing draft report 31/01/2011 Langelu AMBS Roslyn Field La Perouse LALC Mail and requesting comments by ddecke 28/02/2011 Chris Letter enclosing draft report Yvonne 31/01/2011 Langelu AMBS LPBBC Mail and requesting comments by Simms ddecke 28/02/2011 Chris Letter enclosing draft report Norma 31/01/2011 Langelu AMBS WPGEC Mail and requesting comments by Simms ddecke 28/02/2011 Chris Letter enclosing draft report Celestine 31/01/2011 Langelu AMBS DACHA Mail and requesting comments by Everingham ddecke 28/02/2011 Chris Kurranulla Letter enclosing draft report Deanna 31/01/2011 Langelu AMBS Aboriginal Mail and requesting comments by Schrieber ddecke Corporation 28/02/2011 Letter enclosing draft report Deb Troy Koomurri 31/01/2011 AMBS Email and requesting comments by Farina Jennings Management 28/02/2011 Letter enclosing draft report Deb Dharawal Tribe 31/01/2011 AMBS Ken Foster Email and requesting comments by Farina Custodian 28/02/2011 Called to see if La Perouse Ngaire LALC wished to provide 1/03/2011 AMBS Roslyn Field La Perouse LALC Phone Richards feedback on the draft report. No answer. Yvonne gave verbal feedback that there was a Ngaire Yvonne 1/03/2011 AMBS LPBBC Phone lot of cultural significance in Richards Simms Kurnelll, but the area that was surveyed was disturbed. Same contact details as Ngaire Norma 1/03/2011 AMBS WPGEC Phone LPBBC. Yvonne Simms said Richards Simms Norma has similar feedback. Called to see if DACHA Ngaire Celestine wished to provide feedback 1/03/2011 AMBS DACHA Phone Richards Everingham on the draft report. No answer. Called to see if Koomurri Management wished to Ngaire Troy Koomurri 1/03/2011 AMBS Phone provide feedback on the Richards Jennings Management draft report. Number disconnected. Called to see if Ken wished to provide feedback on the draft report. He hasn't had a Ngaire Dharawal Tribe 1/03/2011 AMBS Ken Foster Phone chance to read the draft Richards Custodian report, but will ring tomorrow morning with feedback.

67

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Called to see if La Perouse Ngaire LALC wished to provide 1/03/2011 AMBS Roslyn Field La Perouse LALC Phone Richards feedback on the draft report. No answer. Called to see if DACHA wished to provide feedback on the draft report. Ngaire Celestine 1/03/2011 AMBS DACHA Phone Celestine agreed the area Richards Everingham had been disturbed and will provide a written response tomorrow. Called to see if La Perouse LALC wished to provide feedback on the draft Ngaire report. Roslyn will look up 2/03/2011 AMBS Roslyn Field La Perouse LALC Phone Richards the report, but may not be able to get in contact with the site officer and provide feedback.

68

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

Proof of advertisement that appeared in the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader 4 November 2010

69

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

70

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment Appendix C

Table of Correspondence: NHL Heritage Values and SHR Significance Criteria

71

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

National Heritage criteria State Heritage criteria (NSW) (a) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or of NSW’s (or the local area’s) cultural or natural cultural history history

(b) the place has outstanding heritage value to f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or the nation because of the place's possession of endangered aspects of NSW’s (or the local uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of area’s) cultural or natural history. Australia's natural or cultural history (c) the place has outstanding heritage value to e) an item has potential to yield information the nation because of the place's potential to that will contribute to an understanding of yield information that will contribute to an NSW’s (or the local area’s) cultural or natural understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history. history (d) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in g) an item is important in demonstrating the demonstrating the principal characteristics of: principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s (i) a class of Australia's natural or cultural places; cultural or natural places or environments (or in or the local area). (ii) a class of Australia's natural or cultural environments c) an item is important in demonstrating (e) the place has outstanding heritage value to aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of the nation because of the place's importance in creative or technical achievement in NSW (or exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics the local area). valued by a community or cultural group

(f) the place has outstanding heritage value to c) an item is important in demonstrating the nation because of the place's importance in aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of demonstrating a high degree of creative or creative or technical achievement in NSW (or technical achievement at a particular period the local area). (g) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's strong or d) an item has strong or special association with special association with a particular community a particular community or cultural group in or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or reasons spiritual reasons.

(h) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's special b) an item has strong or special association with association with the life or works of a person, or the life or works of a person, or group of group of persons, of importance in Australia's persons, of importance in NSW’s (or the local natural or cultural history area’s) cultural or natural history.

(i) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance as

part of Indigenous tradition.

72

Kurnell B Line Upgrade: Heritage Impact Assessment

73

Appendix D

Noise

Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration & Structural Dynamics email: [email protected]

website: www.renzotonin.com.au

CALTEX REFINERY, KURNELL

CONSTRUCTION NOISE & VIBRATION

ASSESSMENT OF JET FUEL PIPELINE

TE992-02F02 (REV 3) CN&V ASSESSMENT.DOC

12 APRIL 2011

Prepared for:

ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd

152 Bungaree Road

Pendle Hill NSW 2145

Attention: MR ALAN PARNELL

Sydney (Head Office) Melbourne Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Brisbane ABN 29 117 462 861 1/418A Elizabeth St., SURRY HILLS, NSW 2010 Gold Coast PO Box 877 STRAWBERRY HILLS, NSW 2012 Ph (02) 8218 0500 Fax (02) 8218 0501 Kuwait

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Non- Reviewed & Issued Prepared By Instructed By Date Revision History Issued Authorised by Revision (initials) (initials) Revision (initials)

22/12/2010 Generation of report - 0 MCH - MCH 11/01/2011 Revise report - 1 MCH - MCH 09/03/2011 Further update of report - 2 MCH - MCH 12/03/2011 Finalise report - 3 MCH - MCH

The work presented in this document was carried out in accordance with the Renzo Tonin & Associates Quality Assurance System, which is based on Australian Standard / NZS ISO 9001. This document is issued subject to review and authorisation by the Team Leader noted by the initials printed in the last column above. If no initials appear, this document shall be considered as preliminary or draft only and no reliance shall be placed upon it other than for information to be verified later. This document is prepared for our Client's particular requirements which are based on a specific brief with limitations as agreed to with the Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by a third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party without prior consent provided by Renzo Tonin & Associates. The information herein should not be reproduced, presented or reviewed except in full. Prior to passing on to a third party, the Client is to fully inform the third party of the specific brief and limitations associated with the commission. The information contained herein is for the purpose of acoustics only. No claims are made and no liability is accepted in respect of design and construction issues falling outside of the specialist field of acoustics engineering including and not limited to structural integrity, fire rating, architectural buildability and fit-for-purpose, waterproofing and the like. Supplementary professional advice should be sought in respect of these issues.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 2

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Background Information 5 1.2 Study Area 5 2 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 9 3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT 10 3.1 Construction Noise Criteria 10 3.1.1 Interim Construction Noise Guideline 10 3.2 Construction Noise Sources 12 3.3 Predicted Construction Noise 13 4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 16 4.1 Construction Vibration Criteria 16 4.2 Construction Vibration Sources 19 4.3 Safe Working Distances 19 5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION 21 6 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE ASSESSMENT 24 6.1 Road Traffic Noise Criteria 24 6.2 Predicted Road Traffic Noise 24 7 CONCLUSION 26 APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS 27

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 3

List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Previously Monitored Background (L90) Noise Levels, dB(A) 9

Table 3.1 – Noise at Residences Using Quantitative Assessment 11

Table 3.2 – Summary of Construction Noise Management Levels 12

Table 3.3 – Noise at Commercial Premises Using Quantitative Assessment 12

Table 3.4 – Typical Construction Equipment & Sound Power Levels, dB(A) re. 1pW 12

Table 3.5 – Predicted Leq Construction Noise Levels, dB(A) 14

Table 4.1 – Preferred and maximum weighted rms values for continuous and impulsive vibration acceleration (m/s2) 1-80Hz 16

Table 4.2 – Acceptable vibration dose values for intermittent vibration (m/s1.75) 17

Table 4.3 – BS 7385 Structural Damage Criteria 18

Table 4.4 – DIN 4150-3 Structural Damage Criteria 19

Table 4.5 – Typical Ground Vibration Generated by Construction Plant 19

Table 4.6 – Recommended safe working distances for vibration intensive plant 20

Table 5.1 – Relative Effectiveness of Various Forms of Noise Control, dB(A) 21

Table 5.2 – Noise Control Measures for Likely Construction Plant 22

Table 5.3 – Construction Noise and Vibration Management Options 22

Table 6.1 – Applicable Road Traffic Noise Criteria, dB(A) 24

Table 6.2 – Predicted Traffic Noise Levels from Proposed Construction Trucks, dB(A) 25

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

Renzo Tonin & Associates were engaged to undertake a desktop environmental noise and vibration assessment associated with the construction of the jet fuel pipeline from the Caltex refinery at Kurnell to the Banksmeadow Terminal in Banksmeadow. More specifically, this report quantifies the noise and vibration impact from construction activity associated with the jet fuel pipeline and assesses the potential impact on neighbouring premises close to the site.

The issues addressed in this study include noise and vibration emissions during construction of the pipeline and identifies sensitive locations to assess potential noise and vibration impacts against noise and vibration criteria stipulated by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW).

The existing ambient noise environment was previously measured at locations near the proposed construction site at Kurnell and has been used for the establishment of construction noise criteria for nearby affected residential receivers in Kurnell. Construction noise emissions from the jet fuel pipeline were then calculated at the potentially most affected neighbouring premises at Kurnell and Banksmeadow during the construction works of the project.

The work documented in this report was carried out in accordance with the Renzo Tonin & Associates Quality Assurance System, which is based on Australian Standard / NZS ISO 9001

1.2 Study Area

This study concentrates on two areas associated with the proposed jet fuel pipeline:

Kurnell

The proposed construction in Kurnell will include the area along Road 7 located on the north western side of the Caltex refinery and along the pipeline easement from Road 7 through to the refinery wharf at Kurnell.

Banksmeadow

The proposed construction in Banksmeadow will include a small area on the northern side of the Banksmeadow Terminal.

Specifically, this study investigates construction noise and vibration impacts at sensitive receivers near these study areas.

An assessment of construction noise impacts was completed at the nearest affected sensitive receivers. For the purpose of construction noise assessment the nearest and potentially worst affected sensitive receivers were identified as follows:

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 5

Kurnell

• Receiver R1 – 44-64 Cook Street (Industrial Premises) Industrial premises adjacent to the Caltex refinery to the west and sharing a common boundary. Potentially impacted by construction noise from within the refinery and along the pipeline easement.

• Receiver R2 – 30D Cook Street (Residential) Residential property adjacent to the Caltex refinery to the west and sharing a common boundary. Potentially impacted by construction noise from within the refinery and along the pipeline easement.

• Receiver R3 – 21 Cook Street (Residential) Residential property west of the refinery and potentially impacted by construction noise along the pipeline easement.

• Receiver R4 – 48 Prince Charles Parade (Residential) Residential property south of the refinery wharf and potentially impacted by construction noise along the pipeline easement.

Banksmeadow

• Receiver R5 – EGL Eagle Global Logistics (Industrial / Commercial Premises) Industrial and commercial premises to the north of the Banksmeadow Terminal, across Botany Road. Potentially impacted by noise from construction activities on the northern side or the Banksmeadow Terminal. For a conservative assessment, this receiver will be assessed as a commercial type receiver.

Detailed maps showing the study areas and the receiver locations are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 6

N Parade

Charles

Prince R4 PIPELINE

Drive

R3 Cook Street Cook

Captain EASEMENT R2

R1

CALTEX REFINERY Key Proposed Construction Area Road 7 Receiver Locations

RENZO TONIN &ASSOCIATES inspired to achieve Title : Figure 1 - Kurnell Site,Surrounds & Reciever Locations Date : Scale: Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration and Structural Dynamics 22/12/10 NTS Email: [email protected] www.renzotonin.com.au Ph: (02) 8218 0500 Fax: (02) 8218 0501 Sydney - Ph: (03) 9606 0041 Fax: (03) 9606 0042 Melbourne - Project : Caltex Jet Fuel Pumps Brisbane - Ph: (07) 3211 9155 Fax: (07) 3211 9188 Ref: TE992-02P01 (rev 0) Gold Coast - Ph: (07) 5593 5633 Fax: (07) 5593 5635 AAAC KuwaitMember - of thePh: Association +0011 965 653of Australian 1520 Acoustical Consultants Beauchamp N

R5 Botany

Road

Road

BANKSMEADOW TERMINAL

Key Proposed Construction Area Receiver Location

RENZO TONIN &ASSOCIATES inspired to achieve Title : Figure 1 - Banksmeadow Terminal Site,Surrounds & Date : Scale: Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration and Structural Dynamics 12/04/11 NTS Email: [email protected] www.renzotonin.com.au Reciever Location Ph: (02) 8218 0500 Fax: (02) 8218 0501 Sydney - Ph: (03) 9606 0041 Fax: (03) 9606 0042 Melbourne - Project : Caltex Jet Fuel Pumps Brisbane - Ph: (07) 3211 9155 Fax: (07) 3211 9188 Ref: TE992-02P02 (rev 0) Gold Coast - Ph: (07) 5593 5633 Fax: (07) 5593 5635 AAAC KuwaitMember - of thePh: Association +0011 965 653of Australian 1520 Acoustical Consultants

2 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

Background noise varies over the course of any 24 hour period, typically from a minimum at 3am in the morning to a maximum during morning and afternoon traffic peak hours. Therefore, the NSW ‘Industrial Noise Policy’ (INP) requires that the level of background and ambient noise be assessed separately for the daytime, evening and night-time periods. The INP defines these periods as follows:

• Day is defined as 7:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 6:00pm Sundays & Public Holidays.

• Evening is defined as 6:00pm to 10:00pm, Monday to Sunday & Public Holidays.

• Night is defined as 10:00pm to 7:00am, Monday to Saturday and 10:00pm to 8:00am Sundays & Public Holidays.

To determine background L90 noise levels used for the construction noise assessment, previous long-term unattended noise monitoring carried out between 27th April and 4th May 2006 at the following locations were obtained:

• Location M1 – 15 Cook Street, Kurnell Noise monitoring undertaken in the rear yard. Noise environment is considered to be representative of residences potentially impacted by the proposed construction activities.

The results of the background noise measurements are presented in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 – Previously Monitored Background (L90) Noise Levels, dB(A)

L90 Background Noise Levels Noise Monitoring Location Day Evening Night

Location M1 – 15 Cook Street 41 43 39

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 9

3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Construction Noise Criteria

3.1.1 Interim Construction Noise Guideline

Chapter 171 of the NSW Environmental Noise Control Manual (ENCM, Environment Protection Authority 1994) provides guidelines for assessing noise generated during the construction phase. However, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW – formerly DECC) has recently released its NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG). This document is the DECCW’s standard policy for assessing construction noise. This new guideline supersedes Chapter 171 of the ENCM.

The key components of the guideline that could be incorporated into this assessment include:

1. Use of LAeq as the descriptor for measuring and assessing construction noise.

In recent years NSW noise policies including DECCW’s NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP) and the NSW Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN) have moved to the

primary use of LAeq over any other descriptor. As an energy average, LAeq provides ease of use when measuring or calculating noise levels since a full statistical analysis is not

required as when using, for example, the LA10 descriptor.

Consistent with the ICNG we recommend the use of LAeq as the key descriptor for measuring and assessing construction noise.

2. Application of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures

As stated in the ICNG, a noise mitigation measure is feasible if it is capable of being put into practice, and is practical to build given the project constraints.

Selecting reasonable mitigation measures from those that are feasible involves making a judgement to determine whether the overall noise benefit outweighs the overall social, economic and environmental effects.

3. Quantitative and qualitative assessment

The ICNG provides two methods for assessment of construction noise, being either a quantitative or a qualitative assessment.

A quantitative assessment is recommended for major construction projects of significant duration, and involves the measurement and prediction of noise levels, and assessment against set criteria.

A qualitative assessment is recommended for small projects with a duration of less than three weeks and focuses on minimising noise disturbance through the implementation of reasonable and feasible work practices, and community notification.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 10

It is anticipated that construction works proposed for the jet fuel pipeline will occur for more than three weeks; therefore, a quantitative assessment is carried out herein, consistent with the ICNG’s requirements.

Management Levels

Table 3.1 below (reproduced from Table 2 of the ICNG) sets out the noise management levels and how they are to be applied for residential receivers. The guidelines intend to provide respite for residents exposed to excessive construction noise outside the recommended standard hours whilst allowing construction during the recommended standard hours without undue constraints.

In Table 3.1 below, the rating background level (RBL) is used when determining the management level. The RBL is the overall single-figure background noise level measured in each relevant assessment period (during or outside the recommended standard hours).

Table 3.1 – Noise at Residences Using Quantitative Assessment

Management Level Time of Day How to Apply LAeq (15 min)* The noise affected level represents the point above which there may be some community reaction to noise.

• Where the predicted or measured LAeq (15 min) is greater than the Noise affected noise affected level, the proponent should apply all feasible and reasonable work practices to meet the noise affected RBL + 10dB(A) level.

Recommended • The proponent should also inform all potentially impacted standard hours: residents of the nature of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels and duration, as well as contact details. Monday to Friday 7 am to 6 pm The highly noise affected level represents the point above which there may be strong community reaction to noise. Saturday 8 am to 1 pm • Where noise is above this level, the relevant authority (consent, determining or regulatory) may require respite No work on periods by restricting the hours that the very noisy activities Sundays or can occur, taking into account: public holidays Highly noise affected 1. times identified by the community when they are less 75dB(A) sensitive to noise (such as before and after school for works near schools, or mid-morning or mid-afternoon for works near residences) 2. if the community is prepared to accept a longer period of construction in exchange for restrictions on construction times.

• A strong justification would typically be required for works outside the recommended standard hours. • The proponent should apply all feasible and reasonable work practices to meet the noise affected level. Outside Noise affected recommended • Where all feasible and reasonable practices have been applied RBL + 5dB(A) standard hours and noise is more than 5dB(A) above the noise affected level, the proponent should negotiate with the community. • For guidance on negotiating agreements see section 7.2.2 of the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline.

* Noise levels apply at the property boundary that is most exposed to construction noise, and at a height of 1.5 m above ground level. If the property boundary is more than 30 m from the residence, the location for measuring or predicting noise levels is at the most noise-affected point within 30 m of the residence. Noise levels may be higher at upper floors of the noise affected residence.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 11

The measured background noise levels at the monitoring location (M1) were considered to be representative of the RBL for residences potentially impacted upon by construction works associated with the jet fuel pipeline. Therefore, measured background noise levels are suitable for setting construction noise criteria, consistent with a conservative assessment. Based on the background noise levels measured and the construction work proposed for the day time period only, the construction noise criteria for the day period are summarised below.

Table 3.2 – Summary of Construction Noise Management Levels

Receiver Time of Day Base Management Level LAeq(15min) Receiver R2 – 30D Cook St During recommended Receiver R3 – 21 Cook St standard hours 41 + 10 = 51 (day period) Receiver R4 – 48 Prince Charles Pde

Industrial and Commercial Premises

Industrial and commercial premises located near the proposed Kurnell and Banksmeadow construction sites may potentially be impacted by construction noise. Therefore, in accordance with Section 4.1.3 of the ICNG, industrial and commercial properties should be assessed for construction noise impacts. The noise management levels presented in the ICNG for industrial and commercial premises are reproduced in Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3 – Noise at Commercial Premises Using Quantitative Assessment

Type of Premises Management level, LAeq (15 min)

Industrial (Receiver R1) External noise level = 75 dB(A) Commercial (Receiver R5) External noise level = 70 dB(A)

3.2 Construction Noise Sources

The following table lists construction plant and equipment that are considered to be noisy and likely to be used for the construction activities associated with the jet fuel pipeline at Kurnell and Banksmeadow. It is noted that the list does not include quieter plant and equipment that are expected to not contribute to noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receivers.

Table 3.4 – Typical Construction Equipment & Sound Power Levels, dB(A) re. 1pW

Plant Item Plant Description LAeq Sound Power Levels Equipment used at Caltex Refinery

1 Jack Hammer 110 2 Mobile Crane 110

4 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) 110 3 Hand Held Grinders 108

5 De-watering Equipment 107 6 Tip Truck 105 7 Welder 102

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 12

Plant Item Plant Description LAeq Sound Power Levels 8 Backhoe 101 9 Bobcat 101

10 Power Generator 100

11 Compressor 95 Equipment used along Pipeline Easement 12 Mobile Crane 110

13 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) 110

14 Hand Held Grinders 108 15 De-watering Equipment 107 16 Tip Truck 105

17 Welder 102 18 Backhoe 101

19 Bobcat 101 20 Power Generator 100

Equipment used at Banksmeadow Terminal 21 Jack Hammer 110 22 Mobile Crane 110

23 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) 110

24 Hand Held Grinders 108 25 Tip Truck 105 26 Concrete Pump 102 27 Welder 102

28 Backhoe 101 29 Bobcat 101 30 Power Generator 100 31 Compressor 95

Note: Only plant and equipment items that are expected to contribute to noise impacts to nearby sensitive receivers have been included in this table

The sound power levels for the majority of plant items presented in the above table are based on Table D2 of Australian Standard 2436 - 1981 "Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites", information from past projects and information held in our library files.

3.3 Predicted Construction Noise

Table 3.5 presents predicted external construction noise levels at the nominated receiver locations for each individual plant item, where the item is operating at the closest point to the receiver location. The total noise for a ‘worse case’ scenario where all plant and equipment are operating concurrently at the closest point to the receiver location is also presented. Noise levels were calculated by taking into consideration attenuation due to distance only. Due to the close proximity of the works and the nature of the topography, it was assumed that there were no intervening structures between construction activity and the nearest affected receivers.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 13

As mentioned previously, Receivers R1 and R2 will be impacted by construction activities within the Caltex refinery site and the pipeline easement, Receivers R2 and R4 are only impacted by construction activities along the pipeline easement and Receiver R5 is only impacted by construction activities within the Banksmeadow Terminal.

Table 3.5 – Predicted Leq Construction Noise Levels, dB(A)

Receiver Locations Plant Item Plant Description R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Criteria 75 51 51 51 70

Equipment used at Caltex Refinery

1 Jack Hammer 82 68 - - - 2 Mobile Crane 82 68 - - - 3 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) 82 68 - - -

4 Hand Held Grinders 80 67 - - -

5 De-watering Equipment 79 66 - - - 6 Tip Truck 77 63 - - - 7 Welder 74 61 - - - 8 Backhoe 73 60 - - -

9 Bobcat 73 60 - - - 10 Power Generator 72 59 - - - 11 Compressor 67 53 - - - Worse Case Scenario – All plant operating concurrently 89 76 - - -

Equipment used along Pipeline Easement

12 Mobile Crane 78 71 77 82 -

13 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) 78 71 77 82 -

14 Hand Held Grinders 76 69 75 80 - 15 De-watering Equipment 75 68 74 79 - 16 Tip Truck 73 66 72 77 -

17 Welder 70 63 69 74 - 18 Backhoe 69 62 68 73 -

19 Bobcat 69 62 68 73 - 20 Power Generator 68 61 67 72 -

Worse Case Scenario – All plant operating concurrently 84 77 83 88 -

Equipment used at Banksmeadow Terminal

21 Jack Hammer - - - - 63 22 Mobile Crane - - - - 63 23 Bevelling Machine (pneumatic) - - - - 63

24 Hand Held Grinders - - - - 62

25 Tip Truck - - - - 58 26 Concrete Pump - - - - 55 27 Welder - - - - 56

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 14

Receiver Locations Plant Item Plant Description R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

28 Backhoe - - - - 55 29 Bobcat - - - - 55 30 Power Generator - - - - 54

31 Compressor - - - - 48 Worse Case Scenario – All plant operating concurrently - - - - 70

Noise levels at any receptors resulting from construction would depend on the location of the receptor with respect to the area of construction, shielding from intervening topography and structures (eg. boundary fences) and the type and duration of construction being undertaken. Furthermore, noise levels at receivers will vary significantly over the total construction program due to the transient nature and range of plant and equipment that could be used.

Based on the construction noise levels predicted above, the construction noise criteria will generally be exceeded at the nearest sensitive receiver locations in Kurnell by most plant when operating near the receiver, while construction noise from construction activities within the Banksmeadow Terminal will comply with the noise criteria at Receiver R5.

Therefore, a reasonable and feasible approach towards noise management measures will be required to reduce noise levels as much as possible to manage the impact from construction noise as result of construction activities at Kurnell. It should also be noted that noise levels could exceed those shown if two or more items of plant are operating concurrently in close proximity.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 15

4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

4.1 Construction Vibration Criteria

Disturbance to Buildings Occupants

For disturbance to human occupants of buildings, we refer to DECCW’s ‘Assessing Vibration; a technical guideline’, published in February 2006. This document provides criteria which are based on the British Standard BS 6472-1992, ‘Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1-80Hz)’.

Vibration sources are defined as Continuous, Impulsive or Intermittent. Section 2 of the technical guideline defines each type of vibration as follows:

‘Continuous vibration continues uninterrupted for a defined period (usually throughout the day-time and/or night-time).

Impulsive vibration is a rapid build up to a peak followed by a damped decay that may or may not involve several cycles of vibration (depending on frequency and damping). It can also consist of a sudden application of several cycles at approximately the same amplitude, providing that the duration is short, typically less than 2 seconds.

Intermittent vibration can be defined as interrupted periods of continuous or repeated periods of impulsive vibration that varies significantly in magnitude’.

The criteria are to be applied to a single weighted root mean square (rms) acceleration source level in each orthogonal axis. Section 2.3 of the guideline states:

‘Evidence from research suggests that there are summation effects for vibrations at different frequencies. Therefore, for evaluation of vibration in relation to annoyance and comfort, overall weighted rms acceleration values of the vibration in each orthogonal axis are preferred (BS 6472).’

Preferred and maximum values for continuous and impulsive vibration are defined in Table 2.2 of the guideline and are reproduced below. It is noted that only values applicable to residential, industrial (workshop) and commercial (offices) receivers have been reproduced.

Table 4.1 – Preferred and maximum weighted rms values for continuous and impulsive vibration acceleration (m/s2) 1-80Hz

Preferred values Maximum values Location Assessment period1 z-axis x & y-axis z-axis x & y-axis Continuous vibration

Daytime 0.010 0.0071 0.020 0.014 Residences Night-time 0.007 0.005 0.014 0.010 Offices Day- or night-time 0.020 0.014 0.040 0.028

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 16

Preferred values Maximum values Location Assessment period1 z-axis x & y-axis z-axis x & y-axis Workshops Day- or night-time 0.04 0.029 0.080 0.058

Impulsive vibration

Daytime 0.30 0.21 0.60 0.42 Residences Night-time 0.10 0.071 0.20 0.14 Offices Day- or night-time 0.64 0.46 1.28 0.92

Workshops Day- or night-time 0.64 0.46 1.28 0.92

Notes: 1. Daytime is 7.00 am to 10.00 pm and night-time is 10.00pm to 7.00 am

Intermittent vibration is to be assessed using vibration dose values (VDVs). The VDV method is a fourth power approach which is more sensitive to peaks in the acceleration waveform and makes corrections to the criteria based on the duration of the source’s operation. The VDV can be calculated using the overall weighted rms acceleration of the vibrating source in each orthogonal axis and the total period during which the vibration may occur. Weighting curves are provided in each orthogonal axis in the guideline. Preferred and maximum VDV values for residential, industrial (workshop) and commercial (offices) receivers are defined in Table 2.4 of the guideline and are reproduced below.

Table 4.2 – Acceptable vibration dose values for intermittent vibration (m/s1.75)

Daytime 1 Night-time 1 Location Preferred Maximum Preferred Maximum values values values values

Residences 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.26

Offices 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80

Workshops 0.80 1.60 0.80 1.60

Notes: 1. Daytime is 7.00 am to 10.00 pm and night-time is 10.00pm to 7.00 am

Structural Damage to Buildings

Currently there exists no Australian Standard for assessment of structural building damage caused by vibrational energy. Therefore, reference is made to both the British and German standards below which are relevant to the assessment of structural damage.

British Standard

British Standard 7385: Part 2 “Evaluation and measurement of vibration in buildings”, can be used as a guide to assess the likelihood of building damage from ground vibration. BS7385 suggests levels at which ‘cosmetic’, ‘minor’ and ‘major’ categories of damage might occur.

BS7385 recommends that the peak particle velocity is used to quantify vibration and specifies damage criteria for frequencies within the range 4Hz to 250Hz, which is the range usually encountered in buildings. At frequencies below 4Hz, a maximum displacement value is recommended. The levels from the standard are given below in Table 4.3.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 17

Table 4.3 – BS 7385 Structural Damage Criteria

Peak component particle velocity, mm/s Group Type of Structure 40Hz and 4Hz to 15Hz 15Hz to 40Hz above

Reinforced or framed structures. Industrial and 1 50 heavy commercial buildings Un-reinforced or light framed structures. 2 15 to 20 20 to 50 50 Residential or light commercial type buildings

The peak vibration limits set for minimal risk of ‘cosmetic’ damage are: 15mm/s for un- reinforced or light framed structures, for example residential or light commercial buildings (Group 2; increasing as the frequency content of the vibration increases) and 50mm/s for reinforced or framed structures, for example industrial and heavy commercial buildings (Group 1; constant across all frequencies). ‘Minor’ damage is considered possible at vibration magnitudes which are twice those given and ‘major’ damage to a building structure may occur at levels greater than four times those values.

These values relate to transient vibrations and to low rise buildings. Continuous vibration can give rise to dynamic magnifications due to resonances and may need to be reduced by up to 50%.

The levels set by this standard are considered ‘safe limits’ up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been observed for certain particular types of buildings. Damage comprises minor non-structural effects such as hairline cracks on drywall surfaces, hairline cracks in mortar joints and cement render, enlargement of existing cracks and separation of partitions or intermediate walls from load bearing walls.

This standard states that it considers sources of vibration including blasting, demolition, piling, ground treatments, compaction, construction equipment, tunnelling, road and rail traffic and industrial machinery.

As stated in the standard, it sets guide values for building vibration based on the lowest levels above which damage has been credibly demonstrated. That is, it gives guidance on the levels of vibration above which building structures could be damaged.

German Standard

The German standard DIN 4150 - Part 3 - "Structural vibration in buildings - Effects on Structures”, also provides recommended maximum levels of vibration that reduce the likelihood of building damage caused by vibration. This standard too, presents recommended maximum limits over a range of frequencies measured in any direction at the foundation or in the plane of the uppermost floor.

The minimum ‘safe limit’ of vibration at low frequencies for commercial and industrial buildings is 20mm/s. For dwellings it is 5mm/s and for particularly sensitive structures (eg historical with preservation orders etc), it is 3mm/s. These limits increase as the frequency content of

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 18

the vibration increases. These values are presented in Table 4.4 below and are generally recognised to be conservative.

Table 4.4 – DIN 4150-3 Structural Damage Criteria

Vibration Velocity, mm/s Plane of Floor At Foundation at Frequency of Group Type of Structure Uppermost Storey

Less than 10Hz to 50Hz to All Frequencies 10Hz 50Hz 100Hz 1 Buildings used for commercial 20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40 purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design 2 Dwellings and buildings of similar 5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15 design and/or use 3 Structures that because of their 3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8 particular sensitivity to vibration, do not correspond to those listed in Group 1 or 2 and have intrinsic value (eg buildings under a preservation order)

4.2 Construction Vibration Sources

Typical vibration levels from construction equipment most likely to cause significant vibration are summarised below. The information was sourced from a variety of reference materials available in the Renzo Tonin & Associates library.

Table 4.5 – Typical Ground Vibration Generated by Construction Plant

Activity Typical ground vibration Jackhammers Typical ground vibration levels from jackhammers range from 1 mm/s to 2mm/s at distances of approximately 5m. At distances greater than 20m, vibration levels are usually below 0.2 mm/s.

Backhoe / Typical ground vibration from backhoes and bulldozers range from 1mm/s to 2mm/s at Bulldozer distances of approximately 5m and at distances greater than 20m, vibration levels are usually below 0.2mm/s. Truck traffic Typical vibration from heavy trucks passing over normal (smooth) road surfaces generate relatively low vibration levels in the range of 0.01 - 0.2mm/s at the footings of buildings located 10 - 20m from a roadway. Very large surface irregularities can cause levels up to five to ten times higher. In general, ground vibration from trucks is usually imperceptible in nearby buildings. The rattling of windows and other loose fittings that is sometimes reported is more likely to be caused by airborne acoustic excitation from very low frequency (infrasonic) noise radiated by truck exhausts and truck bodies. While this may cause concern to the occupants, the phenomenon is no different from the rattling caused by wind or people walking or jumping on the floor and fears of structural damage or even accelerated ageing are usually unfounded.

4.3 Safe Working Distances

The relationship between vibration and the probability of causing human annoyance or damage to structures is complex. This complexity is mostly due to the magnitude of the vibration source, the particular ground conditions between the source and receiver, the foundation-to-

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 19

footing interaction and the large range of structures that exist in terms of design (eg dimensions, materials, type and quality of construction and footing conditions). The intensity, duration, frequency content and number of occurrences of vibration, are all important aspects in both the annoyances caused and the strains induced in structures.

The pattern of vibration radiation is very different to the pattern of airborne noise radiation, and is very site specific. As a guide, safe working distances to avoid human discomfort for typical items of vibration intensive plant are listed in Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6 – Recommended safe working distances for vibration intensive plant

Plant Item Safe Working Distance

Jackhammer1 5m Backhoe / Bulldozer2 5m

Truck Movements2 10m

Notes: 1. TIDC Construction Noise Strategy (Rail Projects) November 2007 2. Renzo Tonin & Associates project files, databases & library

Vibration levels are unlikely to exceed the criteria for human comfort at all the nearest receivers as all the receivers are at least 10m away which is equal to or more than the recommended minimum safe working distances for each plant item shown in Table 4.6. However, these are indicative distances only and more detailed site specific safe working distances should be determined once vibration emission levels are measured from each plant item prior to the commencement of their regular use on site.

Furthermore, since the above safe working distances were determined based on the requirements for human comfort, safe working distances to avoid structural damage would significantly be lower as the requirements for human comfort are more stringent than those for structural damage.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 20

5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION

The following recommendations provide reasonable and feasible in-principle noise control solutions to reduce noise impacts to sensitive receivers in Kurnell. Where actual construction activities differ from those assessed in this report, more detailed design of noise control measures may be required once specific items of plant and construction methods have been chosen and assessed on site.

The advice provided here is in respect of acoustics only. Supplementary professional advice may need to be sought in respect of fire ratings, structural design, buildability, fitness for purpose and the like.

Implementation of noise control measures, such as those suggested in Australian Standard 2436-1981 “Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites”, are expected to reduce predicted construction noise levels. Reference to Australian Standard 2436- 1981, Appendix E, Table E1 suggests possible remedies and alternatives to reduce noise emission levels from typical construction equipment. Table E2 in Appendix E presents typical examples of noise reductions achievable after treatment of various noise sources. Table E3 in Appendix E presents the relative effectiveness of various forms of noise control treatment.

Table 5.1 below presents noise control methods, practical examples and expected noise reductions according to AS2436 and according to Renzo Tonin & Associates’ opinion based on experience with past projects.

Table 5.1 – Relative Effectiveness of Various Forms of Noise Control, dB(A)

Typical noise reduction Maximum noise reduction Noise Control possible in practice possible in practice Practical Examples Method Renzo Tonin Renzo Tonin AS 2436 AS 2436 & Assoc. & Assoc.

Acoustic barriers such as earth mounds, Screening 7 to 10 5 to 10 15 15 temporary or permanent noise barriers Engine casing lagged Acoustic with acoustic insulation 15 to 30 10 to 20 50 30 Enclosures and plywood Engine Silencing Residential class mufflers 5 to 10 5 to 10 20 20

Use electric motors in Substitution by preference to diesel or 15 to 25 15 to 25 60 40 alternative process petrol

The Renzo Tonin & Associates’ listed noise reductions are conservatively low and should be referred to in preference to those of AS2436, for this assessment.

Table 5.2 below identifies possible noise control measures, which are applicable on the construction plant likely to be used on site.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 21

Table 5.2 – Noise Control Measures for Likely Construction Plant

Acoustic Alternative Plant Description Screening Silencing Enclosures Process Light commercial vehicles a x x x Dump Trucks a x a x Concrete Truck a x a x Water Cart a x a x Truck (> 20 tonne) a x a x Power Generator a a a x Silenced Air Compressor a a a a Rock Breaker a x a x Pneumatic Jack Hammer a x a x Excavators a x a x Bulldozer a x a x Concrete Truck a x a x

To ensure efficient noise attenuation performance is achieved using any of the methods listed above, it is recommended acoustic engineers work closely with the construction contractors and carry out preliminary testing prior to commencement of works.

A construction noise and vibration management plan should be implemented to avoid adverse noise and vibration disturbance to affected residences.

Table 5.3 below summarises various techniques for controlling construction noise and vibration.

Table 5.3 – Construction Noise and Vibration Management Options

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Options

Source controls Limit work to daylight hours. Time constraints Consider implementing respite periods with low noise/vibration-producing construction activities.

Scheduling Perform noisy work during less sensitive time periods. Select low-noise plant and equipment. Equipment restrictions Ensure equipment has quality mufflers installed. Establish stringent noise emission limits for specified plant and equipment. Emission restrictions Implement noise monitoring audit program to ensure equipment remains within specified limits. Use quieter and less vibration emitting construction methods where Substitute methods possible.

Limit equipment on site Only have necessary equipment on site. Where possible, concentrate noisy activities at one location and move to Limit activity duration another as quickly as possible. Any equipment not in use for extended periods during construction work should be switched off. Noisy plant and equipment should be located as far as possible from noise Equipment location sensitive areas, optimising attenuation effects from topography, natural and purpose built barriers and materials stockpiles.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 22

Vehicle movements outside construction hours, including loading and Site access unloading operations, should be minimised and avoided where possible. Ensure equipment is well maintained and fitted with adequately maintained Equipment maintenance silencers which meet the design specifications. Reduced equipment power Use only necessary size and power. For example, implement worksite induction training, educating staff on Quieter work practices noise sensitive issues and the need to make as little noise as possible. Consider alternatives, such as manually adjustable or ambient noise sensitive types (“smart” reversing alarms) and closed circuit TV systems. Reversing alarms Alternative site management strategies can be developed, in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Plan, with the concurrence of the Occupational Health and Safety Officer.

Path controls Consider installing temporary construction noise barriers / hoarding.

Noise barriers / hoarding Locate equipment to take advantage of the noise screening provided by existing site features and structures, such as embankments, storage sheds and/or boundary fences. Install noise-control kits for noisy mobile equipment and shrouds around Enclosures stationary plant, as necessary.

Increased distance Locate noisy plant as far away from noise-sensitive receptors as possible.

Select and locate site access roads as far away as possible from noise- Site access sensitive areas. Receptor controls

Pre-construction surveys of the structural integrity of vibration sensitive Structural surveys and buildings may be warranted (ie. dilapidation reports) vibration monitoring At locations where there are high-risk receptors, vibration monitoring should be conducted during the activities which cause vibration. Temporary relocation In extreme cases.

Community consultation, information, participation and complaint responses are essential aspects of all construction noise management programs. They typically involve: • A community information program before construction and/or high risk activities are commenced. This usually involves a leaflet distribution and direct discussions and negotiations with affected residents, explaining Consultation the type, time and duration of expected noise emissions. • The involvement of affected residents in the development of acceptable noise management strategies. • A nominated community liaison officer with a contact telephone number. • A complaints hotline. • Timely responses to complaints, providing information on planned actions and progress towards the resolution of concerns. Noise / Vibration Noise and vibration compliance monitoring for all major equipment and Monitoring activities on site should be undertaken.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 23

6 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Road Traffic Noise Criteria

The Leq noise level or the “equivalent continuous noise level” correlates best with the human perception of annoyance associated with traffic noise. The NSW Environmental Criteria for

Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN) uses the LAeq(15hr), LAeq(9hr) and LAeq(1hr) to assess traffic noise impact. The ECRTN is used to assess the potential traffic noise impact from construction traffic travelling on public roads onto residential receivers only. Construction traffic in Kurnell are likely to travel along Captain Cook Drive, Cook Street and/or Prince Charles Parade, while construction traffic at Banksmeadow are likely to travel along Foreshore Road. Residential receivers are located in Kurnell along the roads where construction traffic are likely to travel along and therefore will be assessed against the ECRTN accordingly. However, there are no residential receivers along Foreshore Road where construction traffic associated with the Banksmeadow Terminal are to travel and therefore, construction traffic associated with the Banksmeadow Terminal travelling along Foreshore Road will not be assessed from herein.

Table 1 in the ECRTN, ‘Road Traffic Noise Criteria for Proposed Road or Residential Land Use Developments’, divides land use developments into different categories and lists the respective noise criteria for each case. Captain Cook Drive is categorised as a ‘collector’ road, while Cook Street and Prince Charles Parade are classified as ‘local’ roads. Therefore, the applicable road traffic noise criteria at residential receivers for the day and night periods are summarised in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 – Applicable Road Traffic Noise Criteria, dB(A)

Type of Day Night Where Criteria are Already Exceeded Development (7am-10pm) (10pm-7am)

8. Land use LAeq(1hr) 60 LAeq(1hr) 55 Where feasible and reasonable, existing noise developments levels should be mitigated to meet the noise with potential to criteria. Examples of applicable strategies include create additional appropriate location of private access roads; traffic on collector regulating time of use; using clustering; using road ‘quiet’ vehicles; and using barriers and acoustic treatments. 13. Land use LAeq(1hr) 55 LAeq(1hr) 50 developments In all cases, traffic arising from the development with potential to should not lead to an increase in existing noise create additional levels of more than 2 dB traffic on local roads

Note: 1. Table reproduced from Table 1 of ECRTN

Given that construction activities are to only occur during the day time period, only the day period (7.00am to 10.00pm) will be assessed for traffic noise from herein.

6.2 Predicted Road Traffic Noise

As a ‘worst case’ scenario, it is proposed that there will be up to 20 construction truck movements per day (from 10 construction trucks) plus 20 delivery truck movements per day

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 24

(from 10 delivery trucks), resulting in a total of up to 40 truck movements per day servicing the construction sites in Kurnell that may potentially utilise Captain Cook Drive, Cook Street and/or Prince Charles Parade. This will result in a maximum of four (4) truck movements over a one hour period travelling along Captain Cook Drive, Cook Street and/or Prince Charles Parade.

The following predicted road traffic noise levels based on the maximum number of construction related truck movements over a one hour period have been determined for the nearest residences along Captain Cook Drive, Cook Street and Prince Charles Parade.

Table 6.2 – Predicted Traffic Noise Levels from Proposed Construction Trucks, dB(A)

Distance of Traffic Noise Level from Road Nearest Dwelling L Criteria Complies? Aeq, 1hr Construction Traffic to Road

Captain Cook Drive 5m 60 56 Yes Cook Street 9m 55 54 Yes

Prince Charles Parade 5m 55 55 Yes

From Table 6.2 above, the predicted traffic noise levels at residential receivers along Captain Cook Drive, Cook Street and Prince Charles Parade due to construction traffic from the proposed construction sites at Kurnell, comply with the applicable criteria during the day period.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 25

7 CONCLUSION

A desktop assessment of the construction noise and vibration emissions from the proposed construction of the jet fuel pipeline at the Caltex refinery site in Kurnell and the Banksmeadow Terminal site in Banksmeadow has been undertaken. Specifically, this report aims to minimise noise and vibration impacts during the construction works through a combination of physical noise controls and noise management measures.

Reasonable and feasible in-principle noise and vibration mitigation measures are provided in Section 5 to aid in reducing construction noise and vibration levels at nearby receivers.

Furthermore, noise from construction traffic travelling along public roads were also assessed and were predicted to comply with the applicable criteria stipulated in the ECRTN.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 26

APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS

The following is a brief description of the technical terms used to describe noise to assist in understanding the technical issues presented.

Adverse Weather Weather effects that enhance noise (that is, wind and temperature inversions) that occur at a site for a significant period of time (that is, wind occurring more than 30% of the time in any assessment period in any season and/or temperature inversions occurring more than 30% of the nights in winter).

Ambient Noise The all-encompassing noise associated within a given environment at a given time, usually composed of sound from all sources near and far.

Assessment Period The period in a day over which assessments are made.

Assessment Point A point at which noise measurements are taken or estimated. A point at which noise measurements are taken or estimated.

Background Noise Background noise is the term used to describe the underlying level of noise present in the ambient noise, measured in the absence of the noise under investigation, when extraneous noise is removed. It is described as the average of the minimum noise levels measured on a sound level meter and is measured statistically as the A-weighted noise level exceeded for ninety percent of a sample period. This is

represented as the L90 noise level (see below).

Decibel [dB] The units that sound is measured in. The following are examples of the decibel readings of every day sounds:

0dB The faintest sound we can hear

30dB A quiet library or in a quiet location in the country

45dB Typical office space. Ambience in the city at night

60dB Martin Place at lunch time

70dB The sound of a car passing on the street

80dB Loud music played at home

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 27

90dB The sound of a truck passing on the street

100dB The sound of a rock band

115dB Limit of sound permitted in industry

120dB Deafening

dB(A): A-weighted decibels The ear is not as effective in hearing low frequency sounds as it is hearing high frequency sounds. That is, low frequency sounds of the same dB level are not heard as loud as high frequency sounds. The sound level meter replicates the human response of the ear by using an electronic filter which is called the “A” filter. A sound level measured with this filter switched on is denoted as dB(A). Practically all noise is measured using the A filter.

Frequency Frequency is synonymous to pitch. Sounds have a pitch which is peculiar to the nature of the sound generator. For example, the sound of a tiny bell has a high pitch and the sound of a bass drum has a low pitch. Frequency or pitch can be measured on a scale in units of Hertz or Hz.

Impulsive noise Having a high peak of short duration or a sequence of such peaks. A sequence of impulses in rapid succession is termed repetitive impulsive noise.

Intermittent noise The level suddenly drops to that of the background noise several times during the period of observation. The time during which the noise remains at levels different from that of the ambient is one second or more.

Lmax The maximum sound pressure level measured over a given period.

Lmin The minimum sound pressure level measured over a given period.

L1 The sound pressure level that is exceeded for 1% of the time for which the given sound is measured.

L10 The sound pressure level that is exceeded for 10% of the time for which the given sound is measured.

L90 The level of noise exceeded for 90% of the time. The bottom 10%

of the sample is the L90 noise level expressed in units of dB(A).

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 28

Leq The “equivalent noise level” is the summation of noise events and integrated over a selected period of time.

Reflection Sound wave changed in direction of propagation due to a solid object obscuring its path.

SEL Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is the constant sound level which, if maintained for a period of 1 second would have the same acoustic energy as the measured noise event. SEL noise measurements are useful as they can be converted to obtain Leq sound levels over any period of time and can be used for predicting noise at various locations.

Sound A fluctuation of air pressure which is propagated as a wave through air.

Sound Absorption The ability of a material to absorb sound energy through its conversion into thermal energy.

Sound Level Meter An instrument consisting of a microphone, amplifier and indicating device, having a declared performance and designed to measure sound pressure levels.

Sound Pressure Level The level of noise, usually expressed in decibels, as measured by a standard sound level meter with a microphone.

Sound Power Level Ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the sound power of the source to the reference sound power.

Tonal noise Containing a prominent frequency and characterised by a definite pitch.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Construction Noise & Vibration Assessment of Jet Fuel Pipeline TE992-02F02 (rev 3) CN&V Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 12 April 2011 Page 29

Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration & Structural Dynamics email: [email protected]

website: www.renzotonin.com.au

Doc Ref: TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc

Date: 10 January 2011

To: ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd

Attn: MS HELEN BACHAS Email: [email protected]

From: Michael Chung

RE: CALTEX REFINERY, KURNELL – NOISE ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED JET FUEL PUMPS & CONTROL VALVE

1 INTRODUCTION

Renzo Tonin & Associates were engaged to assess noise impact from the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve to be installed at the Caltex Refinery, Kurnell. The proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve will be assessed against relevant noise criteria from the Environmental Protection Licence issued to Caltex for the operation of the refinery. The pumps and valve will also be assessed to determine if they will cause a perceptible increase in total noise emission from the refinery to the nearest affected residential receivers and proposed new Caltex office buildings.

The proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve will be installed on the north western boundary of the Caltex refinery site and adjacent to the storage tank number 166. Noise predictions are to be conducted by introducing the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve to an existing noise model set up for the refinery and evaluating site noise at the nearest affected receivers and the proposed new Caltex office buildings and assessing against the relevant criteria.

Furthermore, other ancillary equipment will also be installed at the Banksmeadow Terminal, in Banksmeadow as part of the jet fuel pumping system. However, given the location of the proposed equipment there are no sensitive receivers within the vicinity of the Banksmeadow Terminal and therefore, no further assessment will be required for equipment to be installed at the Banksmeadow Terminal.

The work documented in this report was carried out in accordance with the Renzo Tonin & Associates Quality Assurance system, which is based on Australian Standard / NZS ISO 9001.

Sydney (Head Office) Melbourne Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Brisbane Member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants ABN 29 117 462 861 1/418A Elizabeth St., SURRY HILLS, NSW 2010 Gold Coast PO Box 877 STRAWBERRY HILLS, NSW 2012 Ph (02) 8218 0500 Fax (02) 8218 0501 Kuwait

2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

An Environmental Protection Licence (Licence no. 837) issued by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW, formerly EPA) stipulates noise limits from the operation of the Caltex Refinery site. Condition L6 of the licence states the following:

“L6 Noise Limits

L6.1 Noise from the premise must not exceed:

(a) An LA10(15 minute) noise emission criterion of 70 dB(A) (0700 to 2200) seven days a week; and

(b) An LA10(15 minute) noise emission criterion of 65 dB(A) at all other times, except as expressly provided by this licence.

L6.2 Noise from the premises is to be measured or computed at any point within one metre of any affected residence to determine compliance with condition L6.1. 5 dB(A) must be added if the noise is tonal or impulsive in character.”

Based on the above DECCW Licence conditions and the assumption that the proposed pumps may operate at any time, the following criterion will be used:

LA10 (15 minute) < 65dB(A)

Although the proposed new Caltex office buildings are not residential type receivers, for a conservative assessment the above criterion will also be used to assess noise impacts to the office buildings.

Furthermore, with the installation of the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve, the ‘perceptible’ change in total noise emission from the refinery is also assessed.

A change that is ‘perceptible’ to the human ear would imply that there is a sound pressure level increase of at least 2dB(A). By ensuring that site noise levels do not increase by 2dB(A) at the nearest affected residential receivers, it can be deemed that there is no ‘perceptible’ change in the total noise emission from the site at the nearest affected receivers.

3 MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions were made with regard to the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve when modelling:

• There will be two (2) jet fuel pumps installed. However, only one (1) pump will be operating at any one time, with the second pump used as a ‘back up’ pump.

• A control valve will be located adjacent to the jet fuel pumps

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Noise Assessment of Proposed Jet Fuel Pumps & Control Valve TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 10 January 2011 Page 2

• The main noise source of each jet fuel pump will be a 425kW motor with an acoustic enclosure.

• The jet fuel pumps and control valve were modelled on noise data provided by the manufacturer and used in the established noise model.

• The modelling scenarios were set to be under calm weather conditions.

• The proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve were modelled as point sources with noise radiating equally in all directions.

• All existing plant and the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve are operating simultaneously in order to represent a worst-case scenario.

The following locations were chosen to represent the nearest receivers most affected by the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve.

• Receiver R1 – 30D Cook Street, Kurnell Residential property located approx. 270m north of the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve.

• Receiver R2 – Proposed New Caltex Office Buildings Proposed new office buildings located within the Caltex refinery site, where existing heli-pad is located and approx. 170m south west of the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve.

Figure 1 following details the pump and control valve location, surrounding area and receiver location.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Noise Assessment of Proposed Jet Fuel Pumps & Control Valve TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 10 January 2011 Page 3

N

R1

COOK STREET

R2

Notes Receiver Locations

Jet Fuel Pump & Control Valve Location

RENZO TONIN Title : Figure 1 - Aerial Photo Showing Jet Fuel Pumps, Control &ASSOCIATES inspired to achieve Valve and Receiver Locations Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration and Structural Dynamics Email: [email protected] www.renzotonin.com.au Sydney - Ph: (02) 8218 0500 Fax: (02) 8218 0501 Project: Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Melbourne - Ph: (03) 9606 0041 Fax: (03) 9606 0042 Brisbane - Ph: (07) 3211 9155 Fax: (07) 3211 9188 Gold Coast - Ph: (07) 5593 5633 Fax: (07) 5593 5635 Kuwait - Ph: +0011 965 653 1520 Date : 15/10/10 Scale: NTS Ref : TE992-01P01 (rev 1) AAAC Member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants

4 NOISE ASSESSMENT

Noise emission from the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve was calculated to the nearest and potentially most affected receivers. Noise emissions were determined by modelling the noise sources (existing and proposed), receiver locations and topographical features of the intervening area using the ENM (Environmental Noise Model) computer program. The program calculates the contribution of each noise source at the specified receptor point and allows for the prediction of the total noise from the site. The computer program is endorsed by the DECCW and its environmental noise predictions have been verified on many past occasions in the field.

The individual sound power levels of the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve are summarised in Table 1 below. It is noted that the sound power levels presented for the jet fuel pumps include noise attenuation provided by the pump’s acoustic enclosure.

Table 1 – Sound Power Level of Jet Fuel Pump (dB re 1pW)

Overall Octave Band Frequency (Hz) – dB(lin) Plant dB(A) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Jet Fuel Pump 86 53 81 82 81 81 80 75 71 (1 pump)1

Control Valve 92 59 87 88 87 87 86 81 77

Notes: 1. Sound power levels presented include noise attenuation provided by acoustic enclosure

Noise levels were calculated to the nearest affected residential location considering the worst case scenario of all plant (existing refinery plant, one proposed jet fuel pump and control valve) operating simultaneously. In addition to the worst case scenario, the noise emission from only one jet fuel pump and the control valve operating was also calculated. Table 2 below presents calculated noise levels at the receiver locations.

Table 2 – Results of Noise Modelling, dB(A)

Noise Level due to Noise level due Noise Level due Comply with Refinery with to One Jet Fuel Receiver to Existing DECCW Additional Pump & Pump & Control Refinery Licence?1 Control Valve Valve Only Receiver R1 – 30D Cook St 57 58 36 Yes

Receiver R2 – New office 65 65 40 Yes buildings

Notes: 1. Based on DECCW Licence Condition L6 noise limit of 65dB(A)

From the above table, it can be seen that the noise levels from the proposed jet fuel pump (with an acoustic enclosure around the motor) and control valve are insignificant and there will be no significant change to the existing noise levels generated by the refinery at the receiver locations due to the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Noise Assessment of Proposed Jet Fuel Pumps & Control Valve TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 10 January 2011 Page 5

Therefore, the addition of the jet fuel pumps and control valve will not cause any significant increase in existing noise levels at the receiver locations and will comply with the noise limits of the DECCW licence. No additional noise mitigation measures are required.

5 CONCLUSION

An assessment of noise impact from the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve to be located at the Caltex Refinery, Kurnell has been completed. The noise impact from the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve at the nearest residential receiver and at the proposed new Caltex office building was assessed against relevant noise limits stipulated in the DECCW licence issued for the Caltex Refinery site at Kurnell. In addition to the noise limits, the perceptible change in total noise emission from the refinery due to the installation of the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve was also assessed at the two receiver locations.

Modelling results presented in Table 2 for the two receiver locations indicate compliance with the DECCW licence and no significant change to existing noise levels once the proposed jet fuel pumps and control valve are installed and operating.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Noise Assessment of Proposed Jet Fuel Pumps & Control Valve TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 10 January 2011 Page 6

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Non- Reviewed & Issued Prepared By Instructed By Date Revision History Issued Authorised by Revision (initials) (initials) Revision (initials)

30/09/2010 Generation of report - 0 MCH - MCH 15/10/2010 Revision of report - 1 MCH - MCH 10/01/2011 Finalise report - 2 MCH - MCH

The work presented in this document was carried out in accordance with the Renzo Tonin & Associates Quality Assurance System, which is based on Australian Standard / NZS ISO 9001. This document is issued subject to review and authorisation by the Team Leader noted by the initials printed in the last column above. If no initials appear, this document shall be considered as preliminary or draft only and no reliance shall be placed upon it other than for information to be verified later. This document is prepared for our Client's particular requirements which are based on a specific brief with limitations as agreed to with the Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by a third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party without prior consent provided by Renzo Tonin & Associates. The information herein should not be reproduced, presented or reviewed except in full. Prior to passing on to a third party, the Client is to fully inform the third party of the specific brief and limitations associated with the commission. The information contained herein is for the purpose of acoustics only. No claims are made and no liability is accepted in respect of design and construction issues falling outside of the specialist field of acoustics engineering including and not limited to structural integrity, fire rating, architectural buildability and fit-for-purpose, waterproofing and the like. Supplementary professional advice should be sought in respect of these issues.

© Renzo Tonin & Associates (NSW) Pty Ltd Caltex Refinery, Kurnell Environmental Acoustics Team Noise Assessment of Proposed Jet Fuel Pumps & Control Valve TE992-01F02 (rev 2) Noise Assessment.doc ICD (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd 10 January 2011 Page 7

Appendix E

Hazards and Risks

PRELIMINARY HAZARD ANALYSIS OF

THE PROPOSED CALTEX JET FUEL

UPGRADE PROJECT

Prepared for: URS Australia Limited Document Number: URS\19-B273 Revision C2

Prepared by: Karin Nilsson 7 March 2011 PO Box 1497 Lane Cove NSW 2066 Telephone: [02] 9427 7851 Facsimile: [02] 9427 7851 Email: [email protected] www.planager.com.au

Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the Proposed Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Helen Bachas and Alan Parnell (ICD Asia Pacific) and Will Miles (URS Australia) for their assistance in preparing this report.

Disclaimer This report was prepared by Planager Pty Ltd (Planager) as an account of work for URS Australia Limited. The material in it reflects Planager's best judgement in the light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. However, as Planager cannot control the conditions under which this report may be used, Planager and its related corporations will not be responsible for damages of any nature resulting from use of or reliance upon this report. Planager's responsibility for advice given is subject to the terms of engagement with URS Australia Limited.

Rev Date Description Prepared By Reviewed By Authorised By

A 28/02/2011 Draft for Karin Nilsson Maarten Tentij Karin Nilsson Comment

B 01/03/2011 2nd Draft for Karin Nilsson Maarten Tentij Karin Nilsson Comment

C 04/03/2011 Final Report Karin Nilsson Maarten Tentij Will Miles

C2 07/03/2011 Final Report Karin Nilsson Maarten Tentij Will Miles with minor typos corrected

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I

GLOSSARY ...... III

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4

1.1 Background ...... 4

1.2 Scope and Aim of Study ...... 5

1.2.1 Scope ...... 5

1.2.2 Aim ...... 5

2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 7

2.1 Project Location ...... 7

2.2 Modifications to Caltex Kurnell Refinery ...... 9

2.3 Modifications for the Jet Fuel Pipeline (KBL) ...... 11

2.4 Modifications to Caltex Banksmeadow Terminal ...... 12

2.5 Operating Conditions ...... 14

2.6 Security ...... 14

3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 15

3.1 Introduction ...... 15

3.1.1 Hazard Identification ...... 15

3.1.2 Consequence and Effect Analysis ...... 15

3.1.3 Frequency Analysis ...... 16

3.1.4 Risk Analysis ...... 16

3.1.5 Risk reduction ...... 18

3.2 Safety Management Systems ...... 18

3.2.1 Safety Management in General ...... 18

3.2.2 Safety Management System Implemented ...... 19

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

3.3 Main Codes and Standards ...... 20

4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ...... 21

4.1 Hazardous Materials ...... 21

4.1.1 Storage Inventory ...... 21

4.1.2 Properties of Potentially Hazardous Material ...... 21

4.2 Hazardous Incident Scenarios ...... 22

5 DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF ALL HAZARDS AND ASSOCIATED CONTROLS .... 32

5.1 Control of a Loss of Containment Event ...... 32

5.1.1 Primary Containment ...... 32

5.1.2 Secondary Containment ...... 33

5.1.3 Safeguard Systems ...... 34

5.1.4 Separation Distances ...... 35

5.2 Control Risks to the Biophysical Environment ...... 35

5.3 Control of Natural Hazards ...... 35

5.3.1 Earthquake / Seismic Hazard and Hazards from Land Subsidence 36

5.3.2 Brush and Bushfires ...... 36

5.3.3 Flooding / Erosion Hazard ...... 36

5.3.4 Lightning Strike ...... 37

5.4 Control of Other Types of Hazards ...... 37

5.4.1 Aircraft Crash ...... 37

5.4.2 Intentional Acts ...... 37

5.4.3 Knock-on Effects / Cumulative Effects ...... 38

6 QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ...... 40

7 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ...... 43

7.1 New Pumping Station at Kurnell Refinery ...... 43

7.1.1 Individual fatality risk ...... 43

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

7.1.2 Societal fatality risk ...... 45

7.1.3 Propagation risk ...... 45

7.1.4 Injury risk ...... 46

7.2 New Booster Pump Station at Banksmeadow Terminal...... 46

7.2.1 Individual fatality risk ...... 46

7.2.2 Societal fatality risk ...... 48

7.2.3 Propagation risk ...... 48

7.2.4 Injury risk ...... 49

8 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 51

8.1 Overview of Risk ...... 51

8.2 Adherence to Quantitative Risk Criteria – Pumping Stations .... 51

8.3 Acceptability of Other Risks and Hazards...... 52

8.3.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Risk ...... 52

8.3.2 Risk to the Biophysical Environment ...... 53

8.3.3 Natural Hazards ...... 53

A. Earthquake / Seismic Hazard and Hazards from Land Subsidence ...... 53

B. Bushfire / Brush Fire ...... 53

C. Flooding / Erosion ...... 53

D. Lightning ...... 53

8.3.4 External Hazards ...... 54

A. Aircraft Crash ...... 54

B. Incident Causes Knock-on Effect at Neighbouring Facility ...... 54

C. Intentional Acts ...... 54

8.3.5 Cumulative Risk ...... 54

8.4 Overall Conclusion ...... 54

9 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55

10 REFERENCES ...... 56

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Project Location ...... 8

Figure 2 – KBL Block Diagram ...... 9

Figure 3 – Overview of Modifications at Kurnell Refinery ...... 10

Figure 4 – Replacement KBL Pipeline Section at Kurnell ...... 12

Figure 5 – Modifications at Banksmeadow Terminal ...... 13

Figure 6 - Individual Fatality Risk Contours, Kurnell After Upgrade ...... 44

Figure 7 – Propagation Risk, Kurnell After Upgrade ...... 45

Figure 8 – Injury Risk, Kurnell After Upgrade ...... 46

Figure 9 – Individual Fatality Risk Contours, Banksmeadow Terminal, After Upgrade...... 47

Figure 10 – Propagation Risk, Banksmeadow Terminal After Upgrade ...... 49

Figure 11 – Injury Risk, Banksmeadow Terminal After Upgrade ...... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Flow Rates Before and After Upgrade ...... 14

Table 2 – Max Operating Pressures Before and After Upgrade ...... 14

Table 3 – Codes and Standards for the Design of Proposed Upgrade Project. 20

Table 4 – Main Properties of Jet Fuel ...... 21

Table 5 - Summary of Identified Hazards ...... 23

Table 6 – Hazard Identification Word Diagram ...... 24

Table 7 – Bund Design ...... 33

Table 8 – Current Risk Profile, Pumping Stations and KBL Line ...... 41

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table 9 – Risk Profile After Upgrade Project, Pumping Stations and KBL Line 41

Table 10 – Major Risk Contributors, Kurnell Pumping Station After Upgrade ... 44

Table 11 – Major Risk Contributors, Banksmeadow Terminal Booster Pumps After Upgrade ...... 48

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Qualitative Risk Assessment

Appendix 2 – Quantitative Risk Assessment

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project Revision C2 7 March, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E1 Introduction In order to increase the available capacity of the pipeline providing jet fuel from Kurnell Refinery to the Joint User Hydrant Installation Facility at Sydney Airport, it is proposed to install new pumps at the refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal.

A Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), in accordance with the NSW Department of Planning Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the proposed upgrade project, has been prepared by Planager Pty Ltd for inclusion in the Environment Assessment. The results are summarised in this report. The following risks are assessed as part of the PHA:  Risk from flammable material.  Environmental risk from spills. The main features of the proposed upgrade project include:  Caltex Kurnell Refinery: o Installation of new transfer pumps and coalescers. o Installation of a new pigging station (to replace the one at the wharf);  Banksmeadow terminal: Installation of new booster pumps and valves, upgrade and modification of the existing pigging stations and the installation of power supply equipment;  KBL Pipeline: Installation of new pipeline from Kurnell Refinery to halfway along the Kurnell wharf, located within the existing easement. The old pipeline would be decommissioned but not removed. Installation of a new pigging station installed within the refinery to more effectively monitor the KBL and reduce environmental risks. The aim of the PHA is to:  Provide an assessment of the hazards and risks associated with the proposed upgrade project;  Determine the incremental change (increase or decrease) in the risk levels associated with the transfer of petroleum products in the pipeline;  Compare the resulting risk levels with the NSW Department of Planning’s risk criteria for maximum tolerable risk of fatality, injury and propagation. E2 Results The main hazard associated with the proposed project is associated with the handling of jet fuel which is a flammable liquid at atmospheric conditions.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project i Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The predominant mode in which a hazardous incident may be generated is associated with a leak. This would generally only have the potential to cause injury or damage if there was ignition, which resulted in a fire or explosion incident. If the leak was not adequately contained and the jet fuel was allowed to enter the natural environment, an unignited release would be a threat to the biophysical environment

The risk assessment showed that the net result of the proposed upgrade project is an overall reduction in the risk associated with the KBL. This is due to:  An increased ability to check the pipeline for any small reduction in it’s integrity before it becomes an issue; and  The relocation of the pigging station from the wharf to the refinery, a location which can be contained in case of any spills or leaks. The slight increase in risk associated with the more complex operational procedures required to transfer jet fuel at different rates to different customers is managed through the installation of hardware and software features.

The increase in maximum operational pressure in the KBL is not believed to substantially increasing the risk associated with this pipeline. This is because the design pressure and Maximum Allowable Operational Pressure (MAOP) for the KBL exceeds the proposed operating pressure. Further, the pressure trips and alarms would also contribute to the management of this risk.

The risk associated with the Kurnell Refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal is not expected to substantially change as a result of the installation of the new pumping stations. The quantitative risk assessment showed that all landuse criteria, as defined by the NSW Department of Planning are met for the two new pumping stations. The risk of fatality at any nearby residential areas, open spaces and sensitive development is well below the maximum tolerable risk criteria. The risk of propagation from the pumping stations to neighbouring facilities or to infrastructure on the same site (such as the neighbouring storage tanks), is also below the NSW Department of Planning risk criteria. The most stringent risk criteria, as set by the NSW Department of Planning for acceptable risks in industrial installations, are adhered to for the two pumping stations.

E3 Recommendations Recommendation 1: As far as practicable, ensure pipes outside of contained areas are fully welded (not flanged). Recommendation 2: Review existing Emergency Response Plans at both the Kurnell Refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal as well as for the KBL for any changes required following implementation of the proposed upgrade. Recommendation 3: Depending on the results of the Fire Safety Study, further risk reduction may need to be considered for the risk associated with a knock- on at the neighbouring foam pump house at Banksmeadow Terminal in case of a major fire at the booster pump station.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project ii Revision C2 7 March, 2011

GLOSSARY

ADG Australian Dangerous Goods

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AS Australian Standard

CBD Central Business District

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

CP Cathodic Protection

DCVG Direct Current Voltage Gradient

DoP Department of Planning

ESD Emergency Shutdown

HAZID Hazard Identification

HIPAP Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper

ILI Inline Inspection

JUHI Joint User Hydrant Installation Facility

JSA Job Safety Analysis

KBL Kurnell B Line

MAOP Maximum Allowable Operational Pressure

NDT Non Destructive Testing

OH&S Occupational Health and Safety

PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis

PLC Programmable Logic Control

QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

TNO The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project iii Revision C2 7 March, 2011

REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Jet fuel is currently being transferred from the Caltex Kurnell Refinery (the refinery) via the jet fuel pipeline known as the Kurnell B Line (the KBL) to the Joint User Hydrant Installation Facility (JUHI) facility at Sydney Kingsford Smith airport (the JUHI) and to Caltex terminal at Banksmeadow.

In order to increase the available capacity of the jet fuel pipeline it is proposed to increase jet fuel transfer rate from the refinery to the JUHI by installing new pumps at the refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal.

A Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), in accordance with the NSW Department of Planning (NSW DoP) Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the Development, has been prepared by Planager Pty Ltd for inclusion in the Environment Assessment. The results are summarised in this report.

The Director-General’s requirements for the PHA are as follows:

Hazards and Risk – The PHA should consider changes proposed within the Kurnell Refinery boundary, the upgraded pipeline arrangements between the refinery and wharf, increase in pipeline operating pressures and the modifications within the Caltex Banksmeadow terminal. The analysis should include:

- identification of potential hazards associated with the project, to determine the potential for offsite impacts;

- an estimate of the consequences and likelihood of significant events;

- comparison of the estimated overall risks against the Department’s risk criteria; and

- proposed safeguards to ensure risks are minimised.

This PHA has been prepared with reference to the State Environment Planning Policy No 33 (Hazardous and Offensive Development), and in accordance with the NSW DoP’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Papers (HIPAPs) Numbers 4 (Risk Criteria) and 6 (Hazard Analysis), References 1, 2 and 3.

Further, references to the Australian Standard AS2885 (Pipelines - Gas and Petroleum Liquids, Ref 4) are also made with respect to the pipeline component of the upgrade project.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 4 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

1.2 SCOPE AND AIM OF STUDY

1.2.1 Scope The following risks are assessed as part of the PHA:  Risk from flammable material.

 Environmental risk from spills.

The main features of the proposed upgrade project include:

 Caltex Kurnell Refinery:

o Installation of new transfer pumps and coalescers.

o Installation of a new pigging station (to replace the one at the wharf);

 Banksmeadow Terminal: Installation of new booster pumps and valves and upgrade and modification of the existing pigging stations and the installation of power supply equipment;

 Kurnell B Pipeline: Installation of new pipeline from Kurnell Refinery to halfway along the Kurnell wharf, within the existing easement. The old pipeline would be decommissioned. Installation of a new pigging station installed within the refinery to enable pigging of more of the pipeline than what was previously possible.

The existing pigging station at Bumborah Point (North of Botany Bay) will remain unaltered.

1.2.2 Aim

The aim of the PHA is to:

 Provide an assessment of the hazards and risks associated with the proposed upgrade project;

 Determine the incremental change (increase or decrease) in the risk levels associated with the transfer of petroleum products from Caltex Kurnell Refinery to the JUHI (Sydney Airport) via Bumborah Point and the Banksmeadow Terminal;

 Compare the resulting risk levels with the NSW DoP’s risk criteria for maximum tolerable risk of fatality, injury and propagation.

The aim is in line with the requirements by the NSW DoP for the proposed upgrade project.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 5 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The risk associated with the modifications to the Caltex Kurnell Refinery and to Banksmeadow Terminal is assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively and the results are reported in Sections 6 and 7 below.

The risk associated with the Kurnell B Pipeline is assessed more appropriately using the methodology described in the AS2885.1 Pipelines - Gas and Petroleum Liquids (Ref 4) using a multidisciplinary team (as reported in Ref 5) and summarised in this PHA in the Hazard Identification Word Diagram in Table 6 and under Section 6 (below).

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 6 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The Kurnell Refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal are located on opposite sides of Botany Bay in the southern part of metropolitan Sydney, as shown in Figure 1 below.

The Kurnell Refinery is located on the Kurnell Peninsula within Sutherland Shire, approximately 30km south of Sydney’s CBD. The site is bordered by Botany Bay National Park to the east, Captain Cook’s Landing Place Park to the south, Bonna Point Reserve in the west and the community of Kurnell to the north. The refinery mainly produces petrol (49%), diesel (22%) and jet fuel (15%).

A Kurnell B Pipeline (KBL) right of way runs north west from the refinery to a wharf located at the southern side of Botany Bay. The existing jet pipeline (the KBL) runs through this right of way, underground from the refinery, resurfacing after Prince Charles Parade and continuing along the wharf, before diving below Botany Bay. From here the KBL travels north until it reaches land at Bumborah Point. It is still underground at this point and remains so continuing north, before turning west and eventually surfacing at Banksmeadow Terminal.

Banksmeadow Terminal is located on the north side of Botany Bay, approximately 12km south of Sydney’s CBD. The Terminal is bounded by industrial storage facilities to the north, the Patrick Stevedores Container Terminal to the south, the P&O Trans Australia Terminal to the east, and Penrhyn Road and the Penrhyn Estuary to the west. Access to the Terminal is off Penrhyn Road.

Banksmeadow is Caltex’s main storage terminal in NSW and has a maximum storage capacity of 50 million litres. The facility stores products from the Kurnell Refinery which reach the terminal via pipelines under Botany Bay. The main products stored are petrol, diesel, heating oil, aviation fuel and fuel oils.

KBL heads west underground from Banksmeadow Terminal and eventually reaches the JUHI at Sydney Airport.

The KBL is approximately 12km long.

A block diagram of the KBL is provided in Figure 2 below.

The Vopak and Mobile terminals and their associated transfer facilities, also connecting into the KBL, do not form part of the present upgrade project and are hence not included in this PHA.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 7 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 1 – Project Location

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 8 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 2 – KBL Block Diagram

2.2 MODIFICATIONS TO CALTEX KURNELL REFINERY

An overview of the modifications at the refinery is presented in Figure 3 below.

The proposed upgrade works at Kurnell Refinery would be limited to the north eastern part of the refinery where two new pumps (one duty and one standby), and a new pigging facility would be located close to tank 166 and 157, just off Road 7. Two new filter/coalescer and associated instrumentation would also be installed in this area.

The discharge pipes at the new pumps will allow for an increase in maximum operating pressure from the current 1,650kPa to 2,200kPa (refer Table 2 below). The design pressure will be increased from the current 1,950kPa (Class 150 pound rating) to 5,100kPa (Class 300 pound rating).

New suction pipes (300mm diameter), from the existing tanks (127, 1661, 168, & 169) into the new pumps, will also fitted.

Modifications to existing instrumentation and control would be required, in the form of a new flow control loop and a new flow meter, as well as modifications to the existing SCADA and PLC.

1 Tank 166 to be converted from fuel oil to Jet service as part of another proposed project.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 9 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

This new equipment would be installed on a new concrete pad, in the area between an existing earth bund and the primary containment bund for tank 166 (refer to Figure 3 below).

Figure 3 – Overview of Modifications at Kurnell Refinery

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 10 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The existing pigging station, which is currently located at the wharf, will be decommissioned, removed, and replaced with the new pigging station installed in proximity to the new pumps.

2.3 MODIFICATIONS FOR THE JET FUEL PIPELINE (KBL)

An overview of the modifications to the KBL is presented in Figure 3 above.

The KBL operates in different modes depending on the destination of the jet fuel, as follows:

 Deliver to JUHI with stripping to Banksmeadow Terminal

 Direct to JUHI

 Pigging

There will be no change in the flow rates for the mode where jet fuel is transferred from the refinery to the Banksmeadow terminal.

Flow rates will increase from a maximum of 205 kL/hour to a maximum of 400 kL/hour in the modes where jet fuel is transferred from the refinery into the JUHI.

To allow for the pressure increase achieved by the required increase in flow rates, a new 250 mm diameter (10 inch) pipeline would be installed from the new Kurnell Refinery pumping station to half way along the wharf. This pipeline would be rated for 5,100kPa design pressure (compared with the existing 1,950kPa design pressure).

This new, upgraded part of the KBL, would run approximately 1,200m north east alongside Road 7, (refer to Figure 5) from the new pumping station through Gate 5 and out to the wharf buried underground before running along part of the wharf itself (as shown on Figure 5 below). The new pipeline would tie into the existing 250 mm diameter submarine KBL at the wharf. The new pipeline would be buried as per AS2885 requirements (up to 1.5m in depth). This is a common easement with other product transfer lines.

There will be no change to the design pressure of the underwater pipeline, which will remain at 5,100 kPa (Class 300 pound rating), limited by the flanges at either end of the underwater section.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 11 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 4 – Replacement KBL Pipeline Section at Kurnell

2.4 MODIFICATIONS TO CALTEX BANKSMEADOW TERMINAL

An overview of the modifications at Banksmeadow Terminal is presented in Figure 5 below.

Two new booster pumps (variable speed, one duty and one stand-by) will be installed. Each pump will also be fitted with associated instrumentation. The inlet and outlet piping and valving associated with the new pumps will be modified.

. A new filter/coalescer will be installed to filter the fuel into Banksmeadow terminal. Modifications to existing instrumentation and control valves would be required, as well as modifications to the existing SCADA and PLC control systems.

The existing pigging station will also be upgraded.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 12 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 5 – Modifications at Banksmeadow Terminal

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 13 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

2.5 OPERATING CONDITIONS

The following table details the transfer rates before and after the upgrade.

Table 1 – Flow Rates Before and After Upgrade

Current Flowrate Flowrate After Upgrade Change

Refinery to 145-150 kL/hr (direct) 0-150 kL/hr (stripping) Direct transfer is not Banksmeadow proposed. New Terminal mode.

Refinery to 200-205 kL/hr (direct) 400 kL/hr (direct) Increase JUHI 150 kL/hr (pigging) 150 kL/hr (pigging) No change

Stripping not currently 250-400 kL/hr (stripping) New mode. applicable

The following table details the maximum operating pressures before and after the upgrade.

Table 2 – Max Operating Pressures Before and After Upgrade

Location Current Max After Upgrade Max Change Operating Pressure Operating Pressure

Discharge at the 1,650 kPag 2,200 kPag Increase refinery

At Banksmeadow 1,100 kPag (currently - 300 kPag (suction) Decrease Terminal no booster pumps) - 3,845 kPag (discharge) Increase

At JUHI 300 kPag (at JUHI) 390 kPag (at JUHI) Slight increase

2.6 SECURITY

Both pump stations, as installed within the Kurnell Refinery and the within Banksmeadow Terminal, are surrounded by security fencing and are provided with security gates and close circuit television (CCTV) cameras. The sites are also patrolled and access to both facilities is strictly controlled.

The KBL runs underground for most of the way except for where it resurfaces after Prince Charles Parade to continue along the wharf, before diving below Botany Bay, and where it enters and leaves the Banksmeadow Terminal and the JUHI. There are no above ground valve stations or other facilities associated with the pipeline along this route except for one small section where the pipeline crosses a storm water channel beside Bumborah Point Road. No changes are being undertaken here.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 14 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

3 STUDY METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The methodology for the PHA is well established in Australia. The assessment has been carried as per the Department of Planning’s HIPAP No 4 (Risk Criteria for Land Use Planning, Ref 2) and HIPAP No 6 (Guidelines for Hazard Analysis, Ref 3). These documents describe the methodology and the criteria to be used in PHAs, as required by the NSW Department of Planning for major “potentially hazardous” development.

There are five stages in risk assessment (as per Ref 3):

3.1.1 Hazard Identification

The hazard identification includes a review of potential hazards associated with all dangerous and hazardous goods to be processed, used and handled as part of the upgrade project. The hazard identification includes a comprehensive identification of possible causes of potential incidents and their consequences to public safety and the environment, as well as an outline of the proposed operational and organisational safety controls required to mitigate the likelihood of the hazardous events from occurring.

The tasks involved in the hazard identification of the proposed upgrade project included a review of all relevant data and information to highlight specific areas of potential concern and points of discussion, including drafting up of preliminary hazard identification (HAZID) word diagram. For this particular study, a Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study had already been completed by a multidisciplinary team comprised of people with operational / engineering / risk assessment expertise. The HAZID word diagram was prepared party based on the output from this study and partly based on Planager’s knowledge of similar installations and facilities.

The review takes into account both random and systematic errors, and gives emphasis not only to technical requirements, but also to the management of the safety activities and the competence of people involved in them.

The final HAZID word diagram is presented in Table 6 in Section 4 below.

3.1.2 Consequence and Effect Analysis

The consequences of identified hazards are assessed using current techniques for risk assessment. Well established and recognised correlations between exposure and effect on people are used to calculate impacts. Estimations on the effects on the biophysical environment are also made.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 15 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

A set of representative fire and explosion scenarios were identified in the Fire Safety Study in Ref 6. These scenarios include a range of the hazardous events that have some potential to occur.

For the present PHA, these scenarios have been further expanded on, based on the current design of the equipment which forms part of the Project and knowledge of similar facilities, applicable codes and standards, and good engineering practice. The scenarios can be divided into the following categories:

 Moderate releases, characterised by a hole equivalent to that of a flange failure (representing a potential flange or a pump seal). If ignited, such a leak may result in: o A jet fire (from an aerosol formed), o A sump fire and/or, o A flash fire.  Large releases (ruptures), characterised by a hole with a diameter equal to the pipe diameter. If ignited, this leak may result in: o A pool fire, o A flash fire, or o A vapour cloud explosion.

For further details, please refer to Appendices 1 and 2.

Quantitative consequence analysis was undertaken using the TNO Quantitative Risk Assessment program Riskcurves (version 7.6) and consequence modelling software program Effects (version 8.0). The TNO tools are internationally recognised by industry and government authorities. The consequence models used within Effects Riskcurves are well known and are fully documented in the TNO Yellow Book (Ref 7).

3.1.3 Frequency Analysis

For incidents with significant effects, whether on people, property or the biophysical environment, the incident frequencies are estimated based on historical data. A probabilistic approach to the failure of vessels and pipes is used to develop frequency data on potentially hazardous incidents.

Details as to the likelihood analysis are provided in Appendix 1 and in Appendix 2.

3.1.4 Risk Analysis

The combination of the probability of an outcome, such as injury, propagation or death, combined with the frequency of an event, gives the risk from the event. In order to assess the merit of the proposal, it is necessary to estimate the risk

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 16 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 at a number of locations so that the overall impact can be assessed. The risk for each incident is defined according to:

Risk = Consequence x Frequency

The risk associated with the proposed upgrade project is determined both qualitatively, using a risk matrix approach, and quantitatively using risk assessment software.

Qualitative risk: The result of the qualitative risk analysis is presented in table form in the Hazard Identification Word Diagram in Table 6 and in Section 6. Details on the qualitative risk assessment are presented in Appendix 1.

Quantitative risk: In quantitative risk analysis, risk levels from each scenario are calculated by considering each modelled scenario, and combining its frequency with the extent of its harm footprints. Total risk is obtained by adding together the results from the risk calculations for each incident, i.e. the total risk is the sum of the risk calculated for each scenario. The results of the quantitative risk analysis are presented in Section 7 in three forms:

 Fatality Risk:

o Individual Risk of Fatality: The likelihood (or frequency) of fatality to notional individuals at locations around the site, as a result of any of the postulated fire and explosion events. The units for individual risk are probability (of fatality) per million per year. Typically, the result of individual risk calculations is shown in the form of risk contours overlaid on a map of the development area.

o Societal Risk of Fatality: Societal risk takes into account the number of people exposed to risk. Whereas individual risk is concerned with the risk of fatality to a (notional) person at a particular location (person 'most at risk', i.e. outdoors), societal risk considers the likelihood of actual fatalities among any of the people exposed to the hazard. Societal risk is presented as so called f-N curves, showing the frequency of events (f) resulting in N or more fatalities. To determine societal risk, it is necessary to quantify the population within each zone of risk surrounding a facility. By combining the risk results with the population data, a societal risk curve can be produced

 Injury risk, i.e. the likelihood of injury to individuals at locations around the site as a result of the same scenarios used to calculate individual fatality risk.

 Propagation risk, i.e. the risk of propagation from one incident at the proposed upgrade to neighbouring installation and infrastructure.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 17 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The event frequency and hazard consequence data has been combined to produce estimates of risk using TNO’s risk calculation and contour plotting program entitled Riskcurves.

Having determined the risk from a development, it must then be compared with accepted criteria in order to assess whether or not the risk level is tolerable. If not, specific measures must be taken to reduce the risk to a tolerable level. Where this is not possible, it must then be concluded that the proposed development is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.

The risk criteria, applicable for the proposed development, are detailed in Appendix 2 together with further details of the input and the results of the quantitative risk assessment (incident scenarios, likelihoods, consequence etc.).

3.1.5 Risk reduction

Where possible, risk reduction measures are identified throughout the course of the study in the form of recommendations.

3.2 SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

3.2.1 Safety Management in General

In quantitative risk assessments, incidents are assessed in terms of consequences and frequencies, leading to a measure of risk. Where possible, frequency data used in the analysis comes from actual experience, e.g. near misses or actual incidents. However, in many cases, the frequencies used are generic, based on historical information from a variety of plants and processes with different standards and designs.

As with any sample of a population, the quality of the management systems (referred to here as "safety software") in place in these historical plants will vary. Some will have little or no software, such as work permits, planned maintenance and modification procedures, in place. Others will have exemplary systems covering all issues of safe operation. Clearly, the generic frequencies derived from a wide sample represent the failure rates of an "average plant". This hypothetical average plant would have average hardware and software safety systems in place.

If an installation which has significantly below average safety software in place is assessed using the generic frequencies, it is likely that the risk will be underestimated. Conversely, if a plant is significantly above average, the risk will probably be overestimated. However, it is extremely difficult to quantify the effect of software on plant safety. Incorporating safety software as a means of mitigation has the potential to significantly reduce the frequency of incidents and also their consequences if rigorously developed and applied. The risk could also be underestimated if safety software is factored into the risk assessment but is not properly implemented in practice. Practical issues also arise when

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 18 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 attempting to factor safety software into the risk assessment – applying a factor to the overall risk results could easily be misleading as in practice it may be the failure of one aspect of the safety software that causes the accident, while all other aspects are managed exemplarily.

In this study it is assumed that the generic failure frequencies used apply to installations which have safety software corresponding to accepted industry practice and that this site has similar management practices and systems. This assumption, it is believed, will be conservative in that it will overstate the risk from well-managed installations.

3.2.2 Safety Management System Implemented

Caltex have a commitment to Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) and have numerous policies and procedures to achieve a safe workplace. Procedures specific to the upgraded plant and its environment will be developed and incorporated into the safety management system.

The upgraded plant equipment will comply with all current, relevant codes and statutory requirements with respect to work conditions. There will be no changes to existing precautions observed on site, in particular, standards and requirements for the handling of flammable liquids. All personnel required to work with these substances are trained in their safe use and handling, and are provided with all the relevant safety equipment.

Emergency procedures have been developed and will be reviewed in the light of the proposed changes. The emergency procedures include responses to emergency evacuation, injury, major asset damage or failure, critical failures, spillages, major fire, and threats.

The refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal sites each have a manager with overall responsibility for safety, who is supported by experienced personnel trained in the operation and support of the plant.

A Permit to Work system (including Hot Work Permit) and a Management of Change system are in use on site to control work on existing plant and to protect existing plant and structure from substandard and potentially hazardous modifications.

Injury and incident management is proceduralised and people are trained in how to report incidents. An established incident reporting and response mechanism has been established, providing 24 hour coverage.

Protective Systems will be tested to ensure they are in a good state of repair and function reliably when required to do so. This will include scheduled testing of trips, alarms, detectors, relief devices and other protection systems.

All persons on the premises are provided with appropriate personal protective equipment suitable for use with the specific hazardous substances.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 19 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

At least one person on the premises is trained in first aid; and a list of persons trained in, and designated as being responsible for the administering of, first aid is shown on the noticeboards on the premises.

3.3 MAIN CODES AND STANDARDS

The following table shows some of the main codes and standards which are applicable for the proposed upgrade project.

Table 3 – Codes and Standards for the Design of Proposed Upgrade Project

Area of Concern Standard / Code Plant layout and design Chevron Global Aviation Specs philosophy  GPS A5 – Refinery layout and spacing  GPS A6 – Design philosophy Bunding arrangement and  AS1940 The storage and handling of flammable and design combustible liquids (Ref 8) Pump and piping design  STD 40.06.CES.PIM-LA-5112-B Piping Materials  STD 40.06.CES.PIM-LA-5138-A Piping Design  STD 40.06.CES.PVM-LA-4750-E Carbon Steel Pressure Vessels for General Refinery Service  STD 40.06.CES.PMP-983 Centrifugal Pumps for General Refinery Services  API 1581 – Aviation Jet Fuel Filter/Separators 5th Edition  API 610 – Refinery Pumps  ASME B31.3 - Process Piping  AS 1200:2000 - Pressure equipment  AS1200:2000 – Pressure equipment Pipeline (design, operation  AS2885 Pipelines - gas and liquid petroleum (Ref 4). and maintenance) Electrical design  GPS P1 – Electric Power and Lighting  STD 40.06.SPEC-P12 High Voltage Electric Motors  AS/NZS 2381 Electrical Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres – Selection, Installation and Maintenance  AS/NZS 3000 Australian / New Zealand Wiring Rules  AS/NZS 60079 Explosive Atmospheres - Explosion Protection Techniques  AS/NZS 60079.10.1:2009 Explosive Atmospheres Part 10.1: Classification of areas – Explosive gas atmospheres. Emergency response and  Control Of Major Hazard Facilities - National Standard (Ref 9) fire safety  National Code of Practice (Ref 10);  Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Papers No 1 and No 2: Emergency Planning Guidelines and Fire Safety Study (Refs 11 and 12);  Building Code of Australia for any buildings and protected works (Ref 13). Dangerous goods storage Australian Code for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and th and transport Rail (ADG Code), 7 Ed (Ref 14). Occupational health and (NSW) Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. safety (NSW) Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2001.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 20 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

The main risk associated with the proposed upgrade involves the transfer and storage of jet fuel, which is a flammable material at atmospheric conditions.

Other, less prominent hazards associated with the proposed upgrade, involve the use of high voltage electricity and the rotating machinery. Such hazards are predominantly limited to the local area and experienced by operators or maintenance personnel. They are unlikely to give rise to off-site hazards. As such, these potential hazards are generally dealt with using training, procedures, Job Safety Analysis (JSA), permit to work etc., and are not discussed further in this PHA.

4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.1.1 Storage Inventory

There will be no change to storage inventories of dangerous goods (i.e. flammable liquids) on either of the sites affected by the upgrade project.

4.1.2 Properties of Potentially Hazardous Material

Fire and explosion hazards were identified by considering the physical and chemical properties of the jet fuel being considered, and the potential for releases and loss of containment. The table below summarises the main properties of jet fuel.

Table 4 – Main Properties of Jet Fuel

Material Property / Characteristics Dangerous Goods Classification Class 3 PG III, flammable liquid Physical state at atmospheric conditions Liquid Appearance Clear Molecular weight 175 Boiling point 216oC Flash point 38oC Heat of combustion 36644 kJ/kg Heat of vaporisation 341.2 kJ/kg Heat capacity 1.9 kJ/kg K Density @ 10 oC - 797 kg/m3 @ 15oC – 794 kg/m3 @ 25 oC - 787 kg/m3 Vapour pressure @ 10 oC – 0.14 kPa(a) @ 25 oC – 0.34 kPa(a) Flammable range (vapour in air) Between 0.7 and 6 vol%

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 21 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

4.2 HAZARDOUS INCIDENT SCENARIOS

In case of a loss of containment outside of bunded / contained areas, jet fuel may pose a threat to the biophysical environment or it may ignite and pose a threat to people and property.

Jet fuel can be ignited and burn provided the flammable vapour concentrations are within the flammable range and a source of ignition is present. For an explosion with any significant overpressure to occur however, sufficient quantities of vapour will need to be present in a dispersing or stagnant vapour cloud.

If jet fuel is released under high pressure, for example at the discharge of the pump, an aerosol or mist may form that is significantly more flammable than when stored under normal conditions, and lower ignition energy may cause a fire or explosion.

An important part of fire prevention is to avoid situations where fuels may be released as aerosols (Ref 6), which may form an explosive vapour.

Several variables must be addressed in developing an assessment of a release and its general dispersion, including potential for ignition sources. The factors, as presented in Appendix 3, determine the possible outcomes of an uncontrolled release, i.e. whether it:  Disperses without a fire, leading to an environmental pollution issue,  Burns as a pool fire,  Burns as a flash fire, or  Explodes in a vapour cloud. A hazard identification exercise was undertaken by a multidisciplinary team (composed of personnel from design operations and engineering), addressing the nature of hazards that might occur during operation of the facility after implementation of the proposed upgrade (Ref 15). Further, a safety management assessment in accordance with AS2885 requirements was conducted for the project (Ref 5), using a multidisciplinary team from design, process, inspection, operation and project management.

A Hazard Identification Word Diagram has been prepared for this project and presented in Table 6. This table draws from the potential incident scenarios identified during the hazard identification exercises above and elsewhere, including initiating causes, consequences and proposed / existing safeguards to minimise consequences of likelihood of an incident.

A total of 10 hazards were identified in terms of their potential consequences and likelihoods, as listed in Table 5 below.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 22 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table 5 - Summary of Identified Hazards

Hazardous Event Potential Loss of Containment Events (Jet Fuel or Energy) Leak of jet fuel from pipes or pumps on-site or off-site due to generic faults or impact leads to fire event Leak of jet fuel from pipes or pumps on-site or off-site due to generic faults or impact leads to threat to the biophysical environment Natural Hazards Earthquake / Seismic hazard Land subsidence hazard Bush /brush fire Flooding Lightning strike Other types of hazards Aircraft crash Intentional acts Knock-on Effects / Cumulative Effects The risk associated with each incident scenario has been evaluated in turn for the situation before and after the upgrade project. The risk matrix from AS2885 (Ref 4) was used in this exercise. The following terminology is used in the table:

 C: Consequence

 L: Likelihood

 R: Risk

Refer to Appendix 1 for details on the methods used for the qualitative assessment.

Refer to Appendix 2 for the calculations carried out for those scenarios with serious effects which were transferred to the quantitative risk assessment.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 23 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table 6 – Hazard Identification Word Diagram

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

Kurnell KBL 1 Loss of - Construction Damage to the Prevention: Coating on external surfaces of C: Severe C: Severe No - containment damage, pipeline and underground pipelines; Cathodic Protection (CP); L: Remote L: Remote AS2885- - Weld fault, event: release of jet fuel. internal corrosion virtually absent with clean R: Low R: Low methodol - Coating flaw, ogy used Uncontrolled Environmental hydrocarbon; Pressure testing Radiography &/or release from the - Faulty materials. ultrasonic testing of welds; design to limit crack for the - Design defects. pollution if the spill KBL pipeline due to is not contained. propagation; Pipeline Integrity Management Plan. generic faults. Negligible Welding procedures and welds radiographed; change If ignition then material certificates; hydrostatic testing and possibility of flash compare QA/QC. with or jet fire. If Detection: Routine inspection (incl. patrol, situation confinement then pigging, CP monitoring. prior to possibility of a upgrade Protection: Pipe thickness and design factor to vapour cloud explosion. AS2885 requirements. Below ground pipeline is buried and signposted as per AS2885 Injury and property requirements. damage. Emergency response: Emergency response plan, including emergency isolation of pipeline and links to external authorities.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 24 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

2 Loss of Long term effects Damage to pipeline Entire existing pipeline (with the exception of the C: Severe C: Severe No - containment on old pipeline: over a long period length of pipe between Gate 5 at the refinery to L: Unlikely L: Remote AS2885- - Damage to event: Loss of of time, usually the pigging station at the wharf) can be pigged R: Inter- R: Low methodol pipeline with no ogy used containment due starting with a small (Non Destructive Testing). Pigging is carried out mediate to aging pipeline immediate effect issue but could at periodic and regular intervals. for the KBL but possible long develop to an Both stress and temperature are below that term effect. incident of more required for external stress corrosion cracking - Wear and tear. serious nature. - Maintenance After upgrade project: New pipeline in section of failure with no Eventually leading Gate 5 to the wharf which can be pigged. immediate effect. to a release of jet Detection, protection and emergency response as - Stress corrosion fuel. The rest as per No 1 above. cracking. above. rd 3 Loss of 3 party involvement As above Prevention: Underground pipeline within a right- C: Major C: Major No - containment e.g. digging or of-way. Pipeline along wharf is well away from the L: Remote L: Remote AS2885- roadway and is protected by the road kerb. There event: trenching, or other R: Inter- R: Inter- methodol Uncontrolled earth work. are no changes to this compared with the existing ogy used rd mediate mediate pipeline. No 3 party assets in right-of-way for the release of jet Negligible Anchor damage. KBL fuel due to minimises activities near the pipeline. Signage. change impact or 1st party involvement Detection: Pressure sensors and alarms compare damage to the (excavation transmitted to the control room (24hr/7d with pipeline. inspection damages monitoring). Routine inspection and patrol. situation coating and Protection: Resistance of pipelines to penetration prior to upgrade. corrosion). through use of pipe thickness and adequate Destructive vibration design factor and burial depth. near the pipeline. Repair of any coating damage as required. Emergency response: Manual shut down at detection of pressure drop. Emergency response plan.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 25 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

4 Loss of Operational error As above Use of mechanical over pressure and temperature C: Major C: Major No - containment upstream or protection at Kurnell Refinery new pumping L: Remote L: Remote AS2885- station. event: downstream facility. R: Inter- R: Inter- methodol Maloperation Procedure to be written detailing risks and mediate mediate ogy used controls during manual operation (Ref 5). for the

KBL Detection, protection and emergency response – Some increase as above. in risk due to increased pressures on the system and some increase in control comple- xity 5 Loss of Failure during As above Procedures for maintenance and pigging. C: Severe C: Severe No - containment pigging causes loss L: Unlikely L: Remote AS2885- After upgrade project: Pigging station at the wharf event: During of containment R: Inter- R: Low methodol no longer used. New pigging station at the ogy used maintenance mediate refinery, which is contained. for the KBL

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 26 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

6 Natural Event - Flooding, As above No change from existing situation. Regular C: Minor C: Minor No - inspections and patrol for any erosion. L: Remote L: Remote AS2885- - Earthquake, land Structures and plant are designed to withstand subsidence, R: Negli- R: Negli- methodol earthquake effects using well-established gible gible ogy used - Bush/brush fire, procedures in accordance with relevant Australian for the

or International standards. The pipeline route KBL - Lightning strike. does not cross any known areas of mine Negligible change subsidence. compare Bush fire risk minimised through maintenance of a with buffer zone between buried pipeline and natural situation vegetation. Buried pipeline unlikely to be affected prior to by above ground bush / brush fire. upgrade Lightning strike unlikely to damage buried pipeline and pipeline under water (but not impossible). Detection, protection and emergency response – as above.

7 Other types of - Aircraft crash As above An incident at a nearby facility or an aircraft crash C: Severe C: Severe No - is highly unlikely to expose a pipeline and, hazards - Intentional acts L: Hypo- L: Hypo- AS2885- provided that the pipeline is not exposed, damage thetical thetical methodol - Knock-on effects / to the pipeline is highly unlikely. R: Negli- R: Negli- ogy used Cumulative hazards Negligible impact of proposed project on the risk gible gible for the KBL of intentional acts on the pipeline such as terrorism, vandalism. Above ground sections not Negligible changed from existing layout. change Detection, protection and emergency response – compare as above. with situation prior to upgrade

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 27 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

Pump Stations at the Refinery and at the Banksmeadow Terminal 8 Loss of Construction Damage to the Prevention: Painting of aboveground pipework in C: Minor C: Minor YES containment damage, weld fault, pump, pipes and pump station to prevent external corrosion; L: Remote L: Remote (generic event: coating flaw or faulty equipment and internal corrosion virtually absent with clean R: Negli- R: Negli- likelihood Uncontrolled subsequent release hydrocarbon. materials. gible gible data used) release of jet of jet fuel. Hydrotesting; radiography and / or ultrasonic Corrosion (internal fuel due to If liquid release testing of welds; welding procedure. generic faults. or external) then formation of On stream monitoring of pump vibration Negligible Gasket leak. pool which would Draining of pump station away from potential change Seal failure drain away into the sensitive infrastructure. compare sump and bund. with Weld failure Detection: Hydrocarbon detector alarms to be situation If the spill is not fitted at Kurnell and Banksmeadow. Vibration. prior to contained then Seal leak detection system to be installed. upgrade Valve leak possible Routine maintenance and inspection (including environmental regular inspections and patrols). pollution. Protection: Resistance of pipes to metal loss If ignition of a liquid through use of pipe thickness and adequate release then design factor. Location of pumps and associated formation of a pool infrastructure within bunded areas. fire. Possibility of Emergency response: Emergency response flash or jet fire and plan, including emergency isolation of pipeline vapour cloud and links to external authorities. explosion. Injury and property damage. Propagation to neighbouring bushland at Kurnell Refinery.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 28 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

9 Loss of Mechanical impact Damage to the Prevention: Thickness and grade of equipment C: Minor C: Minor YES containment e.g. motor vehicle pump, pipes and and pipes. L: Remote L: Remote (generic event: impact. equipment and Any major work within the facilities requires R: Negli- R: Negli- likelihood Uncontrolled Failure of subsequent release permit to work, including job safety analysis. gible gible data release of jet maintenance. of jet fuel. Remote operated isolation valves available for used) fuel due to If liquid release Emergency Shut Down. Negligible mechanical then formation of Robust nature of valve body – tight shut-off change impact or pool which would feature. compare damage at one drain away into the Regular inspection of facilities and routine with of the pump sump and bund. maintenance. situation stations. Electrical design for equipment in hazardous prior to If the spill is not upgrade areas. contained then possible Draining of pump station away from potential environmental sensitive infrastructure. pollution. Detection: Pressure sensors and alarm transmitted to the control room (24hr/7d If ignition of a liquid monitoring). Continuous detection system. release then Periodic leak surveys. formation of a pool Hydrocarbon alarms at pumps at Kurnell & fire. Banksmeadow. If ignition of an Protection: Resistance of pipes and equipment aerosol then to damage from mechanical impact through use possibility of flash of pipe thickness and adequate design factor. or jet fire. Pump stations are graded away from pumps. If confinement then Spills will drain to oil sump system. possibility of a Spills outside of bunded and contained areas vapour cloud would drain to the site drainage systems which is explosion. segregated so that any potentially contaminated surface water runoff are kept separate from clean Injury and property rainwater runoff. damage. Emergency response: Remote operated emergency shut-down valves.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 29 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

10 Natural Hazards - Flooding, As above Negligible incremental change in flood risk C: Minor C: Minor YES associated with the proposed upgrade project. - Earthquake, land L: Hyo- L: Hyo- (generic Possible decrease due to newer installation and subsidence, thetical thetical likelihood equipment located above grade. R: Negli- R: Negli- data - Bush/brush fire, Protecting against lightning strike in accordance gible gible used) - Lightning strike. with Australian Standard AS 1768 Lightning Protection. Negligible Control of vegetation around facilities. The change in Council owned bushland to the west of the risk from refinery pumping station (Marton Park Wetland) flood, which is located relatively close to the proposed earthquak site of the new pumps may be an issue, refer e and Recommendations 1 and 2 below. lightning. Some increase in risk to wetland near refinery pumps.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 30 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

No Hazard Possible Causes Possible Preventative and Protective Safeguards Risk Risk Carried and Threats Consequences Prior to After forward Upgrade Upgrade to QRA

11 Other Hazards - Aircraft or heavy As above Negligible change in risk profile from aircraft C: Severe C: Severe YES vehicle crash crash due to proposed upgrade project. L: hypo- L: hypo- (generic resulting in damage Vehicle crash into pumping stations extremely thetical thetical likelihood to the pump station unlikely in current situation. R: Negli- R: Negli- data and potentially in Security measures at pumping stations include gible gible used) hazardous releases. fencing, patrols, etc. - Damages station Receipt station at Banksmeadow Terminal is Negligible through terrorism or located inside a fenced area. change vandalism. Knock-on effects prevented through effective compare emergency response, refer recommendation 2 with - Knock-on effects / below. situation Cumulative hazards prior to (incident at the upgrade neighbouring storage tank)

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 31 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

5 DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF ALL HAZARDS AND ASSOCIATED CONTROLS

The Hazard Identification Word Diagram in Table 6 details the control mechanisms for each identified hazard associated with the proposed upgrade project. Further details on these controls are provided below.

5.1 CONTROL OF A LOSS OF CONTAINMENT EVENT

Safety associated with a loss of containment is ensured by the following four elements that provide multiple layers of protection both for the safety of workers and the safety of communities that surround the facilities:  Primary containment;  Secondary containment;  Safeguard systems; and  Separation distances. Generally, these multiple layers of protection create four critical safety conditions, all of which are integrated with a combination of industry standards and regulatory compliance. The following section summarises how the design and construction of the proposed upgrade will comply with these essential elements of safety.

5.1.1 Primary Containment

The first and most important requirement for containing the jet fuel is based on the integrity of containment, including the use of appropriate materials for the facilities, proper engineering design and construction practices and minimising the risk of damage and fatigue of pipelines, pumps and other plant and equipment. The measures to be used at the proposed upgrade include:  The use of recognised and experienced plant designers.  The design of pipeline and other piping in accordance with the most widely recognised and used codes for its type (refer Table 3 for a short summary of those standards and codes in particular applicable to hazards and risk management for this development);  Material selection, robust and secured pipework to code requirements, welds radiographed, hydrostatic testing, design pressure and relief valves, and thermal reliefs.  Minimising the risk of mechanical damage caused by malicious damage through burial of the KBL pipeline as far as practicable, through on-site security measures (to prevent sabotage), and through vehicular assess to the area, protection of plant and equipment and speed restrictions;  Quality control during the construction of the piping, including radiography of welds, testing of weld and heat affected zones, pressure test and/or vacuum

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 32 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

tests as appropriate, production weld testing and other recognised Non Destructive Testing (NDT) requirements;  Minimising lengths of piping and number of flanges (use welded connections wherever possible);  Proper securing of piping;  No use of flexible connection and hoses required as part of this project; and  Regular and periodic inspection and maintenance. 5.1.2 Secondary Containment

The second layer of protection ensures that, if a leak or spill did occur, the jet fuel can be contained and isolated from the public. The Kurnell Refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal includes a system of containment areas (or bunds), capable of containing the quantity of jet fuel that could be released by a credible incident involving the component served by each particular containment system.

Table 7 summarises the design of the sumps and bunds relevant to the present project. Note that both bunds are draining freely through an underground drainage system to the oily sewer where the spill would be captured. The bund has flammable gas detectors that alarm in the control room in case of a spill. The oily sewer is designed with gas seal catch basis to prevent the spread of fire through the oily sewer system.

Table 7 – Bund Design

Bund Surface Area (m2) Design Basis configurations Maximum Kurnell Refinery 264 Capable of restraining a massive release and pump bund directing it to the underground drain system and oily sewer. Maximum surface area of pool in case of completely blocked drainage system (refer Appendix 2 for discussion on the probability of this occurring). 104 Total area covered by the catch basin closest to the pumps. Maximum surface area of pool in case of free drain to oily sump. Banksmeadow 114 Capable of restraining a massive release and Terminal pump directing it to the underground drain system bund and oily sewer 40 Total area covered by the catch basin closest to the pumps. Maximum surface area of pool in case of free drain to oily sump. Should a spill occur, the chances of ignition will be minimised through the use of a combination of hardware plant design features (such as control of static electricity through earthing and electrical continuity and the installation of suitable electrical equipment to comply with hazardous area classification requirements) and through procedural requirements (through use of maintenance systems such as permit to work systems and preventative maintenance programs for electrical equipment in hazardous area).

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 33 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

A loss of containment may ignite at the source, for example due to the static electricity created at the point of release or by a mechanical impact causing the release in the first place. In the case of an ignition at the source, the jet fuel would burn as a jet fire (in the case of an aerosol release) or as a pool fire.

Some potential ignition sources are located within the refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal sites and are integral to the operation of these facilities. These sources are located well outside of the Hazardous Zones. However, in case of a large release of jet fuel it is conceivable that concentrations within the flammable range may reach such an ignition source, resulting in a flash back and a pool fire or possibly a flash fire or vapour cloud explosion (if the vapours were allowed to accumulate).

5.1.3 Safeguard Systems

The goal of the third layer of protection is to minimize the frequency and size of a release and prevent harm from potential associated hazards, such as fire.

For this level of safety protection, the refinery pumps and the Banksmeadow Terminal as well as the KBL are fitted with a number of sensors, detectors and alarms and back-up safety systems, which include an emergency shutdown (ESD) system.

Flammable vapour (hydrocarbon) sensors with alarms as well as detection of upset operating conditions (e.g. pressure, flow) with subsequent plant shut down will be provided.

The ESD system can identify problems and initiate shut off operations in the event certain specified fault conditions or equipment failures occur. The ESD is designed to prevent or limit significantly the amount of jet fuel that could be released in the event of a hazardous incident.

The ESD system is fail safe, i.e. the equipment associated with the ESD system are capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure (e.g. failure of a mechanism or power source). The ESD system includes emergency shutdown buttons which are located in strategic locations within the refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal, including at the control room. Automatic initiation of the ESD system has been designed into the system for critical trip events.

Hydrocarbon vapour detection (at the pumping stations) and fire fighting systems combine to limit effects if there is a release.

Necessary operating procedures, training, emergency response systems and regular maintenance to protect people, property and the environment from any release will also be established. The details of this layer of protection will be defined during the detailed design process.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 34 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

5.1.4 Separation Distances

The fourth layer of protection employed for facility design is required by regulation to maintain separation distances from communities and other public areas. The separation distances are based on requirements code and on the maximum tolerable risk principles (as per the present hazard and risk assessment). With respect to the code-based requirements, the Australian Standards (Ref 8) specify separation distances between storages and boundaries, ignition sources, protected places and accumulations of combustible materials. These separation distances must be large enough to safeguard people and property in case of a loss of containment incident. In case of a spill at the pump platform, the jet fuel drains to sump further through an underground drainage system to an oily sump, minimising the surface area for evaporation and possible heat radiation (if ignition occurs) from neighbouring structures, tanks etc.

5.2 CONTROL RISKS TO THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

A failure to contain a loss of containment of jet fuel could cause environmental pollution to surface and groundwater. Prevention includes:

 Adequately designed piping, vessels, and storage tanks used for liquids;

 Most of the new, above-ground pipework is located inside bunded areas;

 Pipeline manifolds and pumps (both at the refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal) are located on concrete slabs which drain away to the oily water sewer system;

 Oily sumps are fitted with hydrocarbon detectors which initiate alarm, informing pipeline operator of loss of containment.

Recommendation 1: As far as practicable, ensure pipes outside of contained area are fully welded (not flanged).

5.3 CONTROL OF NATURAL HAZARDS

While the safety systems listed in Section 5.1 are in general also partly for the control of the risk associated with natural hazards (such as design to codes and standards, robust design, bunds etc.), specific controls associated with these hazards have been listed below.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 35 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

5.3.1 Earthquake / Seismic Hazard and Hazards from Land Subsidence

Structures and plant are designed to withstand earthquake effects using well- established procedures in accordance with relevant Australian or International standards. The pipeline route does not cross any known areas of mine subsidence.

Note that the main part of the KBL will remain unaltered with regards to risk from seismic hazards and from hazards relating to mine subsidence.

5.3.2 Brush and Bushfires

The risk associated with an incident associated with the new pumping stations initiating a brush or bushfire is minimised through passive protection in the form of plant layout, equipment spacing and drainage of possible liquid spillages away from critical equipment to containment sumps. Further, active measures such as fire and/or hydrocarbon (flammable vapour) detection, a firewater system and overpressure protection will also be included in the detailed design, minimising the effect of an incident.

Further, emergency response plans and procedures have been developed for the facility in conjunction with NSW Fire Brigades. These plans and procedures will detail the steps to be taken in case of a bushfire in the vicinity of the facilities.

The Council owned bushland to the west of the refinery pumping station (Marton Park Wetland) is located relatively close to the proposed site of the new pumps and may be at threat from a fire in the vicinity of the station. This was also highlighted in the Fire Safety Study conducted for the upgrade project (Ref 6). It is noted that the existence of fire hydrants in close proximity to the pump area provides fire protection cover to the wetland area. Recommendation 2: Review existing Emergency Response Plans at both the Kurnell Refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal as well as for the KBL for any changes required following implementation of the proposed upgrade.

5.3.3 Flooding / Erosion Hazard

Floods are unlikely to cause erosion of the ground cover of the KBL pipeline or floatation of the pipeline. The current regime of regular inspections and patrols of the pipeline would be maintained in order to identify any erosion problems and initiate repair of the ground cover. The proposed upgrade project does not introduce any increase in the risk associated with flooding / erosion.

The level of the pumping stations at the Kurnell Refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal are typically above grade.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 36 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

5.3.4 Lightning Strike

Lightning strike is unlikely (but not impossible) to affect a buried pipeline or a pipeline below the Bay.

The refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal are protected against lightning strike in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1768 Lightning Protection (Ref 16) requirements.

5.4 CONTROL OF OTHER TYPES OF HAZARDS

5.4.1 Aircraft Crash

The risk of an aircraft crashing into any given facility is based upon the following:  The location of the airways relative to the facility;  The location of the airport relative to the facility;  The relative consequences should an aircraft crash into the facility. The proposed location of the pumps at the refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal site and the location of the KBL is within a few kilometers from Sydney Kingston Smith airport runways and hence in proximity of the arrival and departure flight paths. While airplane crashes are highly unlikely in Australia due to the stringent Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements, they are possible and should the crash occur at one of the pump stations it is likely to result in massive releases of flammable liquids with subsequent fire and even possibly explosion.

While the consequences of airplane crash are serious, the likelihood of such an incident is extremely low. The incremental increase in risk resulting from the upgrade project, compared with the current risk of an airplane crash at the refinery or the Banksmeadow Terminal, is negligible.

The majority of the pipeline, being buried underground or well under the harbour, is unlikely to be seriously damaged even in the event of an aircraft crash.

5.4.2 Intentional Acts

Intentional acts include terrorism and vandalism. The incremental increase in risk resulting from the upgrade project, compared with the current risk of an intentional act at the refinery, the KBL or the Banksmeadow Terminal, is negligible.

Security at the refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal is discussed in Section 2.6 above.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 37 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

5.4.3 Knock-on Effects / Cumulative Effects

Consequence calculations carried out as part of the Fire Safety Study (Ref 6) shows that separation distances from the pumping stations at both the refinery and Banksmeadow Terminal to neighbouring facilities outside of the site boundaries ensures that the heat radiation or overpressure from credible scenarios are highly unlikely to cause major structural damage at neighbouring facilities.

The possibility of on-site knock-on effects from incidents at the new pumping stations was assessed in the Fire Safety Study for the proposed upgrade (Ref 6). This study showed that:

Kurnell Refinery

 In case of a major pool fire at the refinery, neighbouring tanks (T166 and T157) could be exposed to short time (1-2 minutes) intense heat radiation which was unlikely to pose any major threat to either of these tanks due to the short duration of the fire near the tanks with the pool draining away from the pumps (and hence the tanks) into the oily water sewer.

 Further, a major jet fire at the refinery was unlikely to pose a threat to nearby infrastructure (tanks) due to the bund wall which separates the pumps from the tanks.

 Hence, knock-on effects (or propagation) from a major incident at the Kurnell Refinery pumping station is unlikely to occur.

Banksmeadow Terminal

 In case of a major pool or jet fire at the new booster pump station at the Terminal, neighbouring foam pump house, laboratory and switchroom building could be exposed to intense heat radiation.

 A major jet fire at the new booster pump station at the Banksmeadow Terminal could pose a threat to nearby (existing) products pump.

 Hence, knock-on effects (or propagation) from a major incident at the Banksmeadow Terminal new booster pump station may occur without effective emergency response. This knock-on may cause damage to the Banksmeadow Terminal fire response equipment (foam house) which may lead to diminished emergency response and further damage to the Terminal.

Recommendation 3: Depending on the results of the Fire Safety Study, further risk reduction may need to be considered for the risk associated with a knock-on at the neighbouring foam pump house at

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 38 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Banksmeadow Terminal in case of a major fire at the booster pump station.

Jet Fuel Pipeline (KBL) The pipeline is buried from Bumborah Point to Banksmeadow Terminal and from Banksmeadow Terminal to JUHI.

An incident at a nearby facility is highly unlikely to expose the buried KBL (at a depth of a minimum of 750 mm) and, provided that the pipeline is not exposed, research has shown that a pipeline cannot be damaged by the radiated heat or explosion overpressure from a nearby incident (as discussed in the recent risk assessment of the Young to Bomen pipeline which will be installed alongside an existing high pressure pipeline (Ref 17)).

The pipeline is located underground from the Kurnell Refinery down to the wharf. Leak prevention is achieved through design, operation and maintenance to the requirements of applicable codes and standards (notably AS2885).

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 39 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

6 QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

As discussed above, the qualitative risk assessment has been prepared on the basis of the risk matrix and associated consequence and likelihood scoring tables in AS2885.1 (Ref 5), as presented in Appendix 1, and based on the hazardous incident identification exercise summarised in Table 6 above.

The risk profile of the current pumping stations (at Kurnell Refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal) and the KBL line itself is presented in Table 8 below.

This risk profile can be compared with the risk profile for the pumping stations and the KBL line after completion of the proposed upgrade project, as presented in Table 9 below.

The scenarios refer to those identified in Table 6, as follows:

Scenario 1. KBL loss of containment event: Uncontrolled release from the pipeline due to generic faults.

Scenario 2. KBL loss of containment event: Loss of containment due to aging pipeline

Scenario 3. KBL loss of containment event: Uncontrolled release of jet fuel due to impact or damage to the pipeline.

Scenario 4. KBL loss of containment event: Maloperation

Scenario 5. KBL loss of containment event: During maintenance

Scenario 6. KBL loss of containment due to natural event

Scenario 7. KBL loss of containment due to other types of hazards (terrorism, aircraft crash, knock-on event)

Scenario 8. Pumping station loss of containment event: Uncontrolled release of jet fuel due to generic faults.

Scenario 9. Pumping station loss of containment event: Uncontrolled release of jet fuel due to mechanical impact or damage at one of the pump stations.

Scenario 10. Pumping station loss of containment due to natural hazards

Scenario 11. Pumping station due to other types of hazards (terrorism, aircraft crash, knock-on event)

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 40 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table 8 – Current Risk Profile, Pumping Stations and KBL Line

Table 9 – Risk Profile After Upgrade Project, Pumping Stations and KBL Line

It is evident from the above that a net risk reduction would be expected following the proposed upgrade project, as follows:

Risk Reduction: The risk associated with the following incident scenarios will be reduced (by approximately one order of magnitude):

 Loss of containment event: Scenario 1 - Loss of containment due to aging pipeline. Risk reduced from Intermediate to Low.

 Loss of containment event: Scenario 5 - During maintenance (failure during pigging causes loss of containment from the pigging station). Risk reduced from Intermediate to Low.

There will be some increased complexity in the operation of the pipeline which may somewhat increase the risk of operational error, as follows:

Increase in Risk: The risk associated with the following incident scenario will be somewhat increased:

 Loss of containment event: Scenario 4 - Operational error upstream or downstream facility.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 41 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The increase in risk is not expected to be a whole order of magnitude and cannot therefore be represented as such on the AS2885.1 Risk Matrix above. Further, safety features (including leak detection, pressure trips and alarm functions and procedures will come together to manage this risk.

The increase in pressure and flowrate may increase the rate of release if a pipeline leak was to occur and it may increase the stress on the pipeline. However, this increase is only relevant for certain operational modes (refer Table 1 and Table 2) and the pipeline and pumps have been designed to withstand higher operational pressure. Therefore the increase in pressure and flowrate is not expected to substantially affect the risk levels of the KBL.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 42 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

7 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

The results of the quantitative risk assessment are presented below, as follows:

 Risk associated with the new pumping station at Kurnell Refinery o Individual fatality risk o Societal fatality risk o Propagation risk o Injury risk  Risk associated with the new booster pump station at Banksmeadow Terminal o Individual fatality risk o Societal fatality risk o Propagation risk o Injury risk

7.1 NEW PUMPING STATION AT KURNELL REFINERY

7.1.1 Individual fatality risk

Individual risk contours are shown in Figure 6 for the Kurnell pumping station. The results show the following:

Maximum risk at site boundary: The maximum risk level at the site boundary is 0.08 x 10-6 per year.

-6 Risk criterion for residential areas: The 1x10 per year risk contour, which is applicable for residential areas, is fully contained within the site boundary. The risk contours centre at the new pumping station and the lowest part of the bund where the pump and the catch basin leading to the underground drain system are located.

The risk of fatality at the nearest residential area from the new pumping station -11 is less than 1 x 10 per year. This is less than the risk of dying from a meteorite (Refer 2) as well as being well below the maximum tolerable limit of one chance in a million per year (1 x 10-6 per year).

-6 Risk criterion for active open space: The 10 x 10 per year risk contour for active open space is fully contained within the site boundary. The risk of fatality at the nearest active open space (i.e. at the wetland to the west of the new pump station) is 0.08 x 10-6 per year which is well below the criterion of ten chances per million years (10 x 10-6 per year) for open space.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 43 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 6 - Individual Fatality Risk Contours, Kurnell After Upgrade

Legend: ------10 x 10-6 per year (active open space buffer) -6 ------1 x 10 per year (residential buffer)

-6 Risk criterion for industrial areas: The 50 x 10 per year risk contour for industrial buffer is never reached.

Risk criterion for sensitive development: The risk criterion for any sensitive development (0.1 x 10-6 per year) is contained in most directions except for a small excursion (of one to two meters) into the wetlands at the west of the new pump station. This risk contour does not however extend anywhere near any neighbouring sensitive developments such as nursing homes or schools etc.

-6 Major Risk Contributors: The major risk contributors to the 1x10 per year and the 10x-6 per year risk contours are listed in Table 10 below. Table 10 – Major Risk Contributors, Kurnell Pumping Station After Upgrade

Scenario Contribution to the 10x10-6 Contribution to the 1x10-6 per year contour per year contour Pump leak at subsequent pool 99% 99% fire Hole in one of the coalescers 1% 1%

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 44 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

7.1.2 Societal fatality risk

The risk of fatality at the nearest residential area from the new pumping station -11 is less than 1 x 10 per year. With such low fatality risks at locations where residents and the public may reside, societal risk of fatality does not apply.

7.1.3 Propagation risk

The risk contour for levels of heat radiation and overpressures which may be damaging to process equipment (23 kW/m2 and 14 kPa as per the NSW DoP risk criteria - Ref 2) is presented in Figure 7 below. The 50 x 10-6 per year risk contour, representing the maximum risk of propagation to neighbouring industrial facilities as per the DoP risk criteria, is contained within the site boundary. Further, it does not extend into any major infrastructure on the refinery site (such as neighbouring storage tanks).

The risk of propagation associated with the proposed pumping station is well below tolerable risk levels as per the DoP risk criteria.

Figure 7 – Propagation Risk, Kurnell After Upgrade

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 45 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

7.1.4 Injury risk

The risk contour for levels of heat radiation and overpressures which may be injurious (4.7 kW/m2 and 7 kPa as per the NSW DoP risk criteria - Ref 2) is presented in Figure 8 below. The 50 x 10-6 per year risk contour, representing the maximum risk of injury outside of the site boundary, as per the DoP risk criteria, is contained within the site boundary.

The risk of injury associated with the proposed pumping station is below tolerable risk levels as per the DoP risk criteria.

Figure 8 – Injury Risk, Kurnell After Upgrade

7.2 NEW BOOSTER PUMP STATION AT BANKSMEADOW TERMINAL

7.2.1 Individual fatality risk

Individual risk contours are shown in Figure 9 for the Banksmeadow Terminal booster pumping station. The results show the following:

Maximum risk at the site boundary: The maximum risk level at the site boundary is less than 1 x 10-11 per year.

-6 Risk criterion for residential areas: The 1x10 per year risk contour, which is applicable for residential areas, is fully contained within the site boundary. The risk contours centre around the new booster pumping station and the lowest part of the bund where the pump is located.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 46 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The risk of fatality at the nearest residential area from the new booster pumping station is less than 1 x 10-11 per year. This is less than the risk of dying from a meteorite (Refer 2). It is well below the maximum tolerable limit of one chance in a million per year (1 x 10-6 per year) set by the NSW DoP.

Figure 9 – Individual Fatality Risk Contours, Banksmeadow Terminal, After Upgrade

Legend: ------10 x 10-6 per year (active open space buffer) ------1 x 10-6 per year (residential buffer)

-6 Risk criterion for active open space: The 10 x 10 per year risk contour for active open space is fully contained within the site boundary. The risk of fatality at the nearest active open space or the nearby public road, is well below the criterion of ten chances per million years (10 x 10-6 per year).

-6 Risk criterion for industrial areas: The 50 x 10 per year risk contour for industrial buffer is fully contained within the site boundary in all other directions.

Risk criterion for sensitive development: The risk criterion for any sensitive development (0.1 x 10-6 per year) is fully contained within the site boundary.

-6 Major Risk Contributors: The major risk contributors to the 1x10 per year and the 0.1x10-6 per year risk contours are listed in the table below.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 47 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table 11 – Major Risk Contributors, Banksmeadow Terminal Booster Pumps After Upgrade

Scenario Contribution to the 10x10-6 Contribution to the 1x10-6 per year contour per year contour Pump leak leading to a pool 99% 99% fire Hole in one of the coalescers 1% 1% leading to a pool fire 7.2.2 Societal fatality risk

The risk of fatality at the nearest residential area from the new booster pumping -11 station is less than 1 x 10 per year. With such low fatality risks at locations where residents and the public may reside, societal risk of fatality does not apply.

7.2.3 Propagation risk

The risk contour for levels of heat radiation and overpressures which may be damaging to process equipment (23 kW/m2 and 14 kPa as per the NSW DoP risk criteria - Ref 2) is presented in Figure 10 below. The 50 x 10-6 per year risk contour, representing the maximum risk of propagation to neighbouring industrial facilities as per the DoP risk criteria, is contained within the site boundary.

Further, it does not extend into any major infrastructure on the site such as neighbouring storage tanks. However, the foam shed is located close to the new booster pump station and may be affected in a major fire at the station (also refer to the Fire Safety Study, Ref 6).

The risk of propagation associated with the proposed booster pumping station is below tolerable risk levels, as per the NSW DoP criteria.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 48 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 10 – Propagation Risk, Banksmeadow Terminal After Upgrade

7.2.4 Injury risk

The risk contour for levels of heat radiation and overpressures which may be injurious (4.7 kW/m2 and 74 kPa as per the NSW DoP risk criteria - Ref 2) is presented in Figure 11 below. The 50 x 10-6 per year risk contour, representing the maximum risk of injury outside of the site boundary, as per the DoP risk criteria, is contained within the site boundary. The risk of injury associated with the proposed booster pumping station is below tolerable risk levels.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 49 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure 11 – Injury Risk, Banksmeadow Terminal After Upgrade

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 50 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

8 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

8.1 OVERVIEW OF RISK

The main hazard associated with the proposed project is associated with the handling of jet fuel which is a flammable liquid at atmospheric conditions.

The predominant mode in which a hazardous incident may be generated is associated with a leak. This would generally only have the potential to cause injury or damage if there was ignition, which resulted in a fire or explosion incident. If the leak was not adequately contained and the jet fuel was allowed to enter the natural environment, an unignited release would be a threat to the biophysical environment

The factors involved are:

 Failure must occur causing a release. There are several possible causes of failure, with the main ones being corrosion and damage to the equipment by external agencies;

 For a pollution incident to occur, the release must either occur outside of contained areas (such as bunds) or containment must fail. The level of pollution will depend on the quantities of material released, the ease in which it can be removed and the area cleaned up, and the sensitivity of the environment in which the material was released;

 For a fire to occur, the released material must come into contact with a source of ignition. In some cases this may be heat or sparks generated by mechanical damage while in others, the possible ignition source could include non-flame proof equipment, vehicles, or a heat-source some distance from the release;

 Depending on the release conditions, including the mass of material involved and how rapidly it is ignited, the results of an ignition may be a localised fire (for example a so called jet fire or a pool fire) or a flash fire. If there is confinement a vapour cloud explosion is possible;

 Finally, for there to be a risk, people must be present within the harmful range (consequence distance) of the fire or explosion or the released jet fuel must enter the biophysical environment.

8.2 ADHERENCE TO QUANTITATIVE RISK CRITERIA – PUMPING STATIONS

The detailed design has not been completed as yet for this upgrade project. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions in this hazard and risk assessment are conservative, the results show that the risk associated with this

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 51 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 the Kurnell Refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal pumping stations falls within acceptable limits.

The quantitative risk assessment (QRA) showed that all landuse criteria, as defined by the NSW DoP (Ref 2) are met for the two pumping stations. The risk at any nearby residential areas, open spaces and sensitive development is well below the maximum tolerable risk criteria. The risk associated with the new pumping stations does not preclude further industrial development in the vicinity of the sites.

The risk of propagation from the pumping stations to neighbouring facilities on the same site, such as the neighbouring storage tanks at the refinery and the Terminal, is also below the NSW Department of Planning risk criteria.

The most stringent risk criteria, as set by the NSW DoP for acceptable risks in industrial installations, are adhered to for the two pumping stations.

8.3 ACCEPTABILITY OF OTHER RISKS AND HAZARDS

8.3.1 Qualitative Evaluation of Risk

The net result of the proposed upgrade project is an overall reduction in the risk associated with the KBL. This is due to:

 The upgrade project ensures that the entire pipeline can be subjected to a Non Destructive Testing method (called intelligent pigging) where possible reduction in the integrity of the pipeline can be identified through measurement of loss of wall thickness or coating damage on the pipeline, before it becomes an issue. This process, while performed at typically every 7 years for the rest of the pipeline, cannot currently be completed for a length of pipeline between the Kurnell refinery and the wharf. After the upgrade project the entire pipeline will be able to be intelligently pigged.

 The removal of the pigging station from the wharf and installing it instead at the refinery, in a location which can be contained in case of a loss of containment of jet fuel during pigging activities, is also seen as a clear risk reduction measure.

The slight increase in risk associated with the more complex operational procedures required to transfer jet fuel at different rates to different customers (which may lead to operational error at the upstream or downstream facilities) is managed through the installation of hardware features such as valve position pumping permissives, pressure trips and alarm functions as well as procedures and training.

The increase in maximum operational pressure in the KBL is not believed to substantially increase the risk associated with this pipeline, seeing that the

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 52 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 design pressure and Maximum Allowable Operational Pressure (MAOP) exceeds this value. Further, the pressure trips and alarms would also contribute in the management of this risk.

The risk associated with the Kurnell Refinery and the Banksmeadow Terminal is not substantially changed as a result of the installation of the new pumping stations.

8.3.2 Risk to the Biophysical Environment

Risk to the biophysical environment from accidental releases of hazardous material at the new pumping stations will be minimised throughout the design, operation and maintenance process of plant and equipment. Further, spills outside of bunded areas will drain to the site drainage systems.

Risk to the biophysical environment from the KBL will be reduced as a result of the upgrade project, as discussed in Section 8.3.1 above.

8.3.3 Natural Hazards

A. Earthquake / Seismic Hazard and Hazards from Land Subsidence The risk of earthquake, seismic hazards or land subsidence is minimal and is not altered as a result of the upgrade project.

B. Bushfire / Brush Fire The risk associated with an incident associated with the new pumping stations initiating a brush or bushfire is minimised through a combination of active and passive protection (in the form of plant layout, equipment spacing, drainage, fire and/or hydrocarbon (flammable vapour) detection, a firewater system and overpressure protection).

The risk of a bush fire initiating an event at the KBL is not altered as a result of the upgrade project.

C. Flooding / Erosion The risk associated with flooding or erosion is considered negligible in accordance with the risk ranking methodology in AS2885.1 (refer Appendix 1). It is not altered as a result of the upgrade project.

D. Lightning The risk from lightning strike will be minimised through the use of relevant Australian or International standards.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 53 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

8.3.4 External Hazards

A. Aircraft Crash The risk associated with an aircraft crash is considered negligible in accordance with the risk ranking methodology in AS2885.1 (refer Appendix 1). It is not altered as a result of the upgrade project.

B. Incident Causes Knock-on Effect at Neighbouring Facility The propagation risk calculations show that the current criteria for maximum acceptable risk at neighbouring industrial facilities is met at the boundary of the Kurnell Refinery pumping station and at Banksmeadow Terminal booster pump station.

Further, the said risk contour does not enter into major infrastructure at the two sites (such as storage tank areas).

The risk of knock-on effects at neighbouring installations is considered negligible in accordance with the risk ranking methodology in AS2885.1 (refer Appendix 1) for the KBL. It is not altered as a result of the upgrade project.

C. Intentional Acts The risk of intentional acts (such as vandalism, terrorism) is considered negligible in accordance with the risk ranking methodology in AS2885.1 (refer Appendix 1). It is not significantly altered as a result of the upgrade project.

8.3.5 Cumulative Risk

Examination of the risk contours presented in Section 8.2 above shows that the risk associated with the new pumping stations at Kurnell Refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal is low. It is expected to have low impact on the overall risk from the sites.

8.4 OVERALL CONCLUSION

The construction, commissioning and operation of the proposed upgrade project will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by Caltex and by the designing company, safeguarding delivery and operation of the project in a manner that minimises the risk to workers, contractors and the community.

The potential for incidents is well understood and the design of the plant and equipment will minimise the probability of an incident happening and mitigating an incident if it did occur.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 54 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The preliminary hazard and risk assessment of the proposed upgrade has found that the levels of risks to public safety from the two pumping stations are within generally accepted safety and risk guidelines.

Further, the upgrade project is expected to result in a net reduction in the overall risk from the KBL.

The present risk assessment has shown that the overall risk associated with the proposed upgrade project is low and does not introduce an excessive additional risk to the surrounding area.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

Where possible, risk reduction measures have been identified throughout the course of the study in the form of recommendations. These are as follows:  Recommendation 1: As far as practicable, ensure pipes outside of contained areas are fully welded (not flanged).

 Recommendation 2: Review existing Emergency Response Plans at both the Kurnell Refinery and at Banksmeadow Terminal as well as for the KBL for any changes required following implementation of the proposed upgrade.

 Recommendation 3: Depending on the results of the Fire Safety Study, further risk reduction may need to be considered for the risk associated with a knock-on at the neighbouring foam pump house at Banksmeadow Terminal in case of a major fire at the booster pump station.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 55 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

10 REFERENCES

1 State Environment Planning Policy No 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development, NSW Department of Planning

2 Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 4 (HIPAP No. 4): Risk Criteria for Landuse Planning, NSW Department of Planning

3 Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 6 (HIPAP No. 6): Guidelines for Hazard Analysis, NSW Department of Planning

4 Australian Standard AS2885 for Pipelines - Gas and Petroleum Liquids, 2007

5 AS2885 Risk Assessment Workshop for the Caltex Jet Fuel B Line Stage 2 Upgrade, ICD Asia Pacific, February 2011

6 Caltex Jet Fuel Pipeline Upgrade Project, Fire Risk And Safety Assessment, MATRIX RISK Pty Ltd, DRAFT November 2010

7 Yellow Book, Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effects of the Escape of Dangerous Material, CPR 14E, Parts 1& 2, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, TNO, 3rd edition 1997

8 AS1940 The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids

9 Control Of Major Hazard Facilities - National Standard, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC:1014), 2002

10 National Code of Practice National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC:2016), 1996

11 Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 1: Industrial Emergency Planning Guidelines, NSW Department of Planning 1993

12 Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 2: Fire Safety Study, NSW Department of Planning 1993.

13 Building Code of Australia

14 Australian Code for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (ADG Code), 7th Ed, 2007

15 Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A10027 - HAZOP Worksheets, Caltex Refineries NSW, Kurnell, Printed 20 September 2010

16 AS 1768 Lightning Protection

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 56 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

17 Nilsson K, Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the Natural Gas Delivery Pipeline between Young and Bomen in NSW, Planager Pty Ltd, 13 October 2009

18 Dangerous Substances (PGS 3), Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment, Ministerie van VROM Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, December 2005

19 Cox A. W. Lees F. P, Ang M. L. Classification of Hazardous Locations, IChemE, 1990

20 Orica HAZAN Course, SHE Pacific, 1998

21 Wincek J C, and Haight J M, Realistic Human Error Rates for Process Hazard Analyses, Published online 4 January 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com), DOI 10.1002/prs.10184

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project 57 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Appendix 1

Qualitative Risk Assessment

Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the Proposed Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A1. 1 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Appendix 1 – Qualitative Risk Assessment

A1.1 – Risk Matrix

The risk matrix from AS2885.1 (2007) was used to qualitatively assess the risks associated with the proposed upgrade.

A1.1 – Risk Matrix

A1.2 – Consequence Scoring Table

A1.3 – Likelihood Scoring Table

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A1. 2 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Appendix 2

Quantitative Risk Assessment

Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the Proposed Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 3 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Appendix 2 – Quantitative Risk Assessment

A2.1 – Risk Criteria

A2.1.1 - Individual Risk Criteria The individual fatality risk is the probability of fatality to a person or a facility at a particular point. It is usually expressed as chances per million per year. It is assumed that the person will be at the point of interest 24 hours per day for the whole year. By convention in NSW, no mitigation is allowed, i.e. any possible evasive action that could be taken by a person exposed to a hazardous event, e.g. by walking out of a toxic cloud or a heat radiation. The assessment of fatality, incident propagation and injury risk should include all components contributing to the total risk, i.e. fire and explosion.

The NSW DoP uses a set of guidelines on acceptable levels or individual risk which are in line with the criteria used elsewhere in the world. These guidelines are published in the HIPAP No. 4: Risk Criteria for Land Use Safety Planning (Ref 2). The criteria for maximum tolerable individual risk from a new development are shown in Table A2.1 below. The criteria have been chosen so as not to impose a risk which is significant when compared to the background risk we are already exposed to. This table shows the criteria for individual risk of fatality, injury and propagation of an incident.

Table A2.1 - Criteria for Tolerable Individual Risk From New Development Land Use Max Tolerable Risk (per million per year) Fatality risk criteria: Hospitals, Schools, etc 0.5 Residential areas, hotels, etc 1 Offices, retail centres, etc 5 Open space, recreation areas etc 10 Neighbouring industrial areas 50 Overpressure for Safety Distances: Property damage and accident 14 kPa 50 propagation Adjacent potentially hazardous installation, land zoned to accommodate such installations, or nearest public building Injury risk levels 7 kPa 50 At residential areas Maximum Heat Radiation: Injury risk levels 4.7 kW/m2 50 At residential areas Property damage and accident 23 kW/m2 50 propagation Adjacent potentially hazardous installation or land zoned to accommodate such installations In order to put these risks into perspective, published information on the level of risk to which each of us may be exposed from day to day due to a variety of activities has been shown in Table A2.2 below. Some of these are voluntary,

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 4 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 for which we may accept a higher level of risk due to a perceived benefit, while some are involuntary. Generally, we tend to expect a lower level of imposed or involuntary risk especially if we do not perceive a direct benefit.

Table A2.2 - Risk to Individuals Activity / Type of Risk Published levels of risk (per million per year) VOLUNTARY RISKS (AVERAGED OVER ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS) Smoking 5,000 Drinking alcohol 380 Swimming 50 Playing rugby 30 Travelling by car 145 Travelling by train 30 Travelling by aeroplane 10 INVOLUNTARY RISKS (AVERAGED OVER WHOLE POPULATION) Cancer 1,800 Accidents at home 110 Struck by motor vehicle 35 Fires 10 Electrocution (non industrial) 3 Falling objects 3 Storms and floods 0.2 Lightning strikes 0.1 A2.1.2 - Societal Risk Criteria Societal risk is concerned with the potential for an incident to coincide in time and space with a human population. Societal risk takes into account the potential for an incident to cause multiple fatalities. Therefore, two components are relevant, namely:

 The number of people exposed in an incident, and

 The frequency of exposing a particular number of people.

In the absence of published criteria in HIPAP 4 (Ref 2), the criteria in the 1996 regional study of Port Botany by the NSW DoP2 have been used for indicative purposes, as presented in Table A2.3 below.

Table A2.3 - Criteria for Tolerable Societal Risk Number of Acceptable limit of N or more Unacceptable limit of N or more fatalities (N) [-] fatalities per year fatalities per year 1 3 x 10-5 3 x 10-3 10 1 x 10-6 1 x 10-4 100 3 x 10-8 3 x 10-6 1000 1 x 10-9 1 x 10-7

2 then the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 5 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

The societal risk criteria specify levels of societal risk which must not be exceeded by a particular activity. The same criteria are currently used for existing and new developments. Two societal risk criteria are used, defining acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk due to a particular activity. The criteria in Table A2.3 above are represented on the societal risk (f-N) curve as two parallel lines. Three zones are thus defined:

 Above the unacceptable/intolerable limit the societal risk is not acceptable whatever the perceived benefits of the development.

 The area between the unacceptable and the acceptable limits is known as the ALARP (as low as reasonably possible) region. Risk reduction may be required for potential incidents in this area.

Below the acceptable limit, the societal risk level is negligible regardless of the perceived value of the activity.

A2.2 - Consequence Analysis

A2.2.1 - Modelling Software Consequence analysis was undertaken using the TNO Quantitative Risk Assessment program Riskcurves (version 7.6) and consequence modelling software program Effects (version 8.0). The TNO tools are internationally recognised by industry and government authorities.

The consequence models used within Effects Riskcurves are well known and are fully documented in the TNO Yellow Book (Ref 7).

Essentially, an appropriate release rate equation is selected based on the release situation and initial state of the material. The atmospheric dispersion model for denser-than-air releases - SLAB - is used to model dispersion behaviour for heavier than air vapours such as those formed from a jet fuel released into the atmosphere. The software tool is able to predict when the dispersed gas becomes neutral through incorporation of air and switches model automatically.

A2.2.2 - Evaluation Techniques

Leak Rates Riskcurves and Effects model release behaviour for compressed gas, liquid or 2-phase releases from vessels, pipelines or total vessel rupture. Input data includes the type of release, location of release with respect to vessel geometry, pipe lengths etc. and initial conditions of the fluid (i.e. before release).

The release rate is assumed to remain constant until isolation can be achieved - this is a conservative approach as in reality there will be pressure reduction and hence reduction in leak rate.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 6 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Duration The duration of a leak will depend on the hardware systems available to isolate the source of the leak, the nature of the leak itself and the training, procedures and management of the facility. While in some cases it may be argued that a leak will be isolated within one minute, the same leak under different circumstances may take 10 minutes to isolate. Under worst case conditions, such as where there are large quantities of materials between two isolating valves, the release may last even longer. In such cases, the release pressure and hence the release rate will decrease.

The approach used in this study for the failure scenarios identified is to assume the release continues until the inventory has been released, up to a maximum duration of one hour. This is a conservative assumption as the operators have the ability to isolate the leak using remote operated valves.

Where automatic response has been designed into the plant (e.g. in the form of process trips), such response has been taken into account, with the relevant probability of failure of the trip.

Pool Dimensions The Riskcurves model calculates the rate of evaporation and spreading of a pool of liquid. There are three release options which have the following implications on the spreading of a pool of liquid:

1. Instantaneous release: the inventory is released instantaneously, with the associated speed of the pool being very rapid;

2. Continuous release: the inventory is released at a constant rate for a given time period; and,

3. Transient release: the inventory is released at a variable rate for a given time period.

The rate of evaporation will depend on many factors, including climatic and weather, as well as the surface area over which evaporation takes place. A large surface area means a higher degree of evaporation if all other variables remain constant. Table A2.4 below summarizes the main assumptions made in the calculation of pool spreading and evaporation rates.

Table A2.4 - Input factors used to model Jet Fuel Spreading and Evaporation Rate

Substrate: Land, average soil Roughness Parameter: Low crops, occasional large object Release Duration Duration derived from release rate calculation.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 7 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Dispersion Distances A gas released will disperse in the atmosphere. At concentrations between the upper flammable limit and the lower flammable limit, jet fuel can ignite and burn.

The Riskcurves model is used to estimate the distance to which a release of flammable vapours will disperse to half the LFL for momentum driven (high pressure, high velocity releases) and dense gas scenarios respectively. Feed rates for gas dispersion models are taken from vapour release rates calculated by the Effects model.

Weather Data Weather conditions are described as a combination stability category and wind speed. This is usually denoted as a combination of a letter with a number, such as D4 or F2. The letter denotes the Pasquil stability class and the number gives the wind speed in metres per second.

Wind speeds range from light (1-2 m/s) through moderate (around 5 m/s) to strong (10 m/s or more). The probability of the wind blowing from a particular direction is displayed graphically as a wind rose.

The Pasquil stability classes describe the amount of turbulence present in the atmosphere ranging from unstable weather (class A), with a high degree of atmospheric turbulence to stable conditions (class F). Class A would normally be found on a bright sunny day; class D (neutral conditions), corresponding to an overcast sky with moderate wind; and class F corresponds to a clear night with little wind.

The approach used in this study is to define one wind weather category to represent day time (D4) and one to represent nighttime (F2).

A2.2.3 - Heat Radiation and Explosion Overpressures

Modelling Techniques - Theory Heat Radiation

The effect or impact of heat radiation on people is shown in the table below.

Table A2.5 - Effects of Heat Radiation

Radiant Heat Level Physical Effect (kW/m2) (effect depends on exposure duration) 1.2 Received from the sun at noon in summer 2.1 Minimum to cause pain after 1 minute 4.7 Will cause pain in 15-20 seconds and injury after 30 seconds’ exposure 12.6 Significant chance of fatality for extended exposure High chance of injury

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 8 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Radiant Heat Level Physical Effect (kW/m2) (effect depends on exposure duration) 23 Likely fatality for extended exposure and chance of fatality for instantaneous (short) exposure 35 Significant chance of fatality for people exposed instantaneously In Riskcurves, heat radiation effects are calculated based on flame surface emissive power (which is dependent on the quantity of material, its heat of combustion, flame dimensions and the fraction of heat radiated), as per the Yellow Book by TNO (in Ref 7). The heat flux at a particular distance from a fire is calculated using the view factor method. The view factor takes into account the distance from the flame to the target, the flame dimensions and the orientation angle between the flame and the target.

The effect of heat radiation on a person is calculated from the probit equation which relates to the probability of fatality to the thermal dose received (i.e. the combined heat and exposure time) though the following equations.

Probit Pr = -36.38 + 2.56 ln(tQ1.33)

With t = exposure time (sec) and Q = heat flux (W/m2).

And with the relationship between the probit value and the probability of fatality is calculated as follows: 1 1  erf Pr 5  Probability of fatality = 2 2 0.5

Overpressure

The effect or impact of overpressure is shown in the table below.

Table A2.6 - – Effect of Explosion Overpressure

Overpressure Physical Effect (kPa) 3.5 90% glass breakage. No fatality, very low probability of injury 7 Damage to internal partitions & joinery 10% probability of injury, no fatality 14 Houses uninhabitable and badly cracked 21 Reinforced structures distort, storage tanks fail 20% chance of fatality to person in building 35 Houses uninhabitable, rail wagons & plant items overturned. Threshold of eardrum damage, 50% chance of fatality for a person in a building, 15% in the open 70 Complete demolition of houses Threshold of lung damage, 100% chance of fatality for a person in a building or in the open In Riskcurves, the Multi Energy method is used to predict the overpressures from flammable gas explosions, as per the Yellow Book in Ref 7. The key

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 9 Revision C2 7 March, 2011 feature of the Multi-Energy method is that the explosion is not primarily defined by the fuel air mixture but by the environment in which the vapour disperses.

Partial confinement is regarded as a major cause of blast in vapour cloud deflagrations. Blast of substantial strength is not expected to occur in open areas. Strong blast is generated only in places characterized by partial confinement while other large parts of the cloud burn out without contributing to the blast effects. The vapour cloud explosion is not regarded as an entity but is defined as a number of sub-explosions corresponding to various sources of blast in the vapour cloud, i.e. each confined part of the cloud is calculated as a separate vapour cloud explosion.

The initial strength of the blast is variable, depending on the degree of confinement and on the reactivity of the gas. The initial strength is represented as a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means slow deflagration and 10 means detonation. For explosions in process plant environments the initial strength is thought to lie between 4 to 7 on the scale.

Calculated Fire Dimensions Flame dimensions will vary depending on the wind weather conditions. Riskcurves calculates the flame dimensions for each wind weather category and incorporates these into the risk assessment together with their respective probability of occurrence.

Pool fire evaporation and burning rates will also vary depending on the wind weather conditions. Riskcurves calculates the heat radiation from a fire for each wind weather category and incorporates these into the risk assessment together with their respective probability of occurrence.

Calculated Blast Overpressure Dimensions For a release of flammable gas into an unconfined environment the chances of an explosion is small.

A vapour cloud explosion is possible however if some degree of confinement is present, for example in a cramped plant area.

For concentrations within the flammable range from a release of jet fuel to be able to reach a confined area the release must be relatively large. Hence, vapour cloud explosions were only considered for the pipe rupture cases.

A2.3 - Likelihood Analysis

A2.3.1 - Failure Rates The frequency of each postulated equipment failure incident scenario listed above was determined using the data in the table below.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 10 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

These frequencies for pipelines and vessel leaks are those that have been in use by Orica Engineering for over 15 years of risk assessments in Australia. These frequencies are based on Orica Engineering’s interpretation of published and unpublished (internal ICI and Orica) data.

The frequencies for pump leaks are those from Dutch TNO Purple Book (Ref 18).

Table A2.7 - Equipment Failures and Associated Frequencies

Type of Failure Failure Rate (pmpy) PIPELINES WITHIN FIXED PLANT 3 mm hole 9 / m 13 mm hole 3 / m 50 mm hole 0.3 / m 3 mm gasket (13 mm hole equivalent) 5 / joint

Guillotine fracture (full bore): < 50 mm 0.6 / m > 50 mm but < 100 mm 0.3 / m > 100 mm 0.1 / m PRESSURE VESSEL 6 mm hole 24 pmpy 13 mm hole 6 pmpy 25 mm hole 3 pmpy 50 mm hole 3 pmpy Catastrophic rupture 1 pmpy PUMP LEAK (FOR PUMPS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS) Catastrophic failure (full bore rupture of the 100 largest connecting pipeline) Leak (leak with an effective diameter of 500 10% of the nominal diameter of the largest connecting pipeline) A2.3.2 - Ignition Probability Cox, Lees and Ang (Ref 19) gives the probabilities for ignition, as presented in the table below. The probability increases as a function of the size of the release. For the smallest releases the ignition probability may be as low as 1%. Vapours, such as those evaporating from a jet fuel release, are considered to be of medium reactivity, with correspondingly medium ignition probability.

Table A2.8 – Probability of Ignition

Size Release Ignition probability Small 1% Medium 3% Large 8% The probability of delayed ignition for pipeline incidents are takes as per the Orica Hazard Analysis (HAZAN) Course (Ref 20).

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 11 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Table A2.9 - Probability of Delayed Ignition

Size Release (kg/s) Probability of Delayed Ignition Small to medium vapour cloud 0.1 Medium vapour cloud 0.22 Major vapour cloud 0.43 The probability of an explosion for the fixed plant (where there may be some confinement) is taken as 40% of the total delayed ignition case, with flash fires accounting for the other 60% of cases. This is as per the methodology in the TNO Purple Book (Ref 18) and more conservative than observations of actual incidents in process industry.

The frequency of outcome of each individual incident scenario is listed in the spread sheet below. The Event Tree in Figure A2.1 below shows the flammable even logic used in this assessment.

Blockage in the Bund Drainage System In the case of a loss of containment at the pumps at Kurnell Refinery or at the booster pumps at Banksmeadow Terminal, the jet fuel would gravity drain through the underground drainage system to the oily water sewer located at either site.

There are three catch basins within the Kurnell pump bund where the spill could enter the underground oily water sewer system.

If there was a blockage in one of these catch basins it is assumed that the spill would be transferred through the slope in the bund floor to the next catch basins and so forth.

If there was a blockage in the common underground drain system then a spill would pool on the pump bund floor.

The absence of blockages is checked every time there is rain and procedures exist to ensure that the pump bunds are free of water. There are no common mode incidents identified where the blockage in the drain system is initiated through a leak at the pumps. Hence the blockage in the drain system is assumed to be fairly unlikely to coincide with a loss of containment at the pumps.

The following probability of failing to correct a blocked drain in either pump station bund is used in the present PHA, following the methodology suggested in the AIChE publication in Ref 21:

 General errors of omission for items imbedded in a procedure: 1 x 10-3 per demand

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 12 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

In the case of a totally blocked drainage system the maximum surface area of a loss of containment is that covering the total bund area.

If the drain is not blocked, the loss of containment scenario is evaluated buy fixing the maximum surface of the pool at that which is covered by the closest catch basin.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 13 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Figure A2.1 - Event Tree for Ignition of Jet Fuel Releases

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.14 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.15 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.16 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.17 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.18 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2.19 Revision C2 7 March, 2011

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Of The Proposed C:\URS\19-B273\PHA Revision C2 Caltex Jet Fuel Upgrade Project A2. 20 Revision C2 7 March, 2011