Report. PWCS Combined Environmental Compliance Audit /01/01. Prepared for: Port Waratah Coal Services. Prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd

Transcription

1 a Report PWCS Combined Environmental Compliance Audit /01/01 Prepared for: Port Waratah Coal Services Prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd AUSTRALIA

2

3 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION / APPROVAL RECORD Issue No. Name Signature Date Position Title Prepared by Katherine Hutton Assistant Auditor Checked by Ian Irwin Lead Auditor Approved by Ian Irwin Lead Auditor Report Name: PWCS Combined Environmental Compliance Audit 2015 Sub Title: DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD Issue No. Date Details of Revisions 1 21/8/15 Initial Submission Report No /01/01 Status: Client Contact Details: Port Waratah Coal Services P O Box 57 Carrington NSW 2294 Issued by: URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 8, 420 George St Sydney NSW 2000 Australia T: F: Document copyright of URS Australia Pty Limited. No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings, specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the subject of a written contract between URS Australia and the addressee of this report. URS Australia accepts no liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and URS Australia reserves the right to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use. Document Delivery. URS Australia provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. URS Australia considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client s convenience and URS Australia requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Cth) /01/01 J:\SYD\ \5 WIP\2015 Draft Audit Report\PWCS Combined Environmental Compliance FINAL.docx

4

5 LIMITATIONS URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of Port Waratah Coal Services and only those third parties who have been authorised in writing by URS to rely on this Report. It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report. It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the contract. Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to URS by third parties, URS has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the Report. URS assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information. This Report was prepared between 28 July 2015 and 21 August 2015 and is based on the conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time. This Report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This Report does not purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners. Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise agreed by URS in writing. Where such agreement is provided, URS will provide a letter of reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by URS. To the extent permitted by law, URS expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss, damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of, or reliance on, any information contained in this Report. URS does not admit that any action, liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party. Except as specifically stated in this section, URS does not authorise the use of this Report by any third party. It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation to their particular requirements and proposed use of the site. Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as at the date of the Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from actual costs at the time of expenditure /01/01 5

6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... III 1 INTRODUCTION Background Development Consent for Stage KCT Expansion to 120 Mtpa Independent Annual Environmental Audit Report Structure SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Objectives Scope of Works Personnel and Timing Audit Methodology Documentation COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - STAGE 3 EXPANSION (DA 35/96) Development Consent Conditions (DPE) Community Enquiries Stage 3 Expansion (DA 35/96) Closed Conditions Assessment of Compliance Stage 3 Expansion (DA 35/96) COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - KCT 120 MTPA (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) Compliance Assessment Complaints and Enquiries KCT 120 MTPA (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) Closed Conditions Assessment of Approval Conditions: KCT 120 Mtpa (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) OTHER LICENCES Occupation Certificates Environment Protection Licence Miscellaneous Licences, Consents and Lease Agreements CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development Application DA No 35/ Approval 06_ Recommendations TABLES Table 1-1 Status of Compliance Terminology... 3 Table 5-1 Compliance Audit Tables - Construction Certificates, Occupation Certificates & Approvals Summary List Table 5-2 Compliance Audit Tables - Miscellaneous Licences /01/01

8 Table 5-3 Compliance Audit Tables Environment Protection Licence No 1552 Relevant Conditions 40 APPENDICES Appendix A Consent Conditions (DA No 35/96) Appendix B Project Approval (06_0189_MOD 3) Appendix C Community Enquiries Register Appendix D Aggregation of Quarterly Monitoring Reports Appendix E Site Layout and Photos Appendix F Attendance Sheets Appendix G Final Occupancy Certificate /01/01

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) operates the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) at Kooragang Island in the Port of Newcastle. PWCS has now completed major expansion works (Stage 3 Expansion) under a Development Application (DA No. 35/96), which was granted in 1996 at KCT. In addition to these works, PWCS was granted Approval by the Minister of Planning (Project Approval 06_0189) to undertake major project works comprising the upgrade and improvement of existing infrastructure to allow an increased throughput of coal at the terminal to a maximum of 120 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Subsequent modifications to this approval during 2010 (Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 1) and 2012 (Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 2) incorporated the construction and operation of additional coal handling infrastructure at KCT, known as the Stage 4 Project. A further modification to Project Approval 06_0189 was incorporated in November 2012 to address the changes in land title associated with the site (Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 3). One of the conditions attached to DA 35/96 (Condition 32) requires that an independent environmental compliance audit be conducted annually. It is also a condition of modified Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 3 (Condition 5.1c) that an independent environmental compliance audit is undertaken at least annually. In order to streamline the auditing process associated with the expansion, upgrade and operation of the coal loading facility, PWCS has obtained approval from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to combine the two audits in to a single report. This report presents the findings of these two environmental compliance audits, covering the period August 2014 until July Development Application No. 35/96 for the Stage 3 Expansion operations lists 43 Conditions of Consent. URS have undertaken an independent audit of PWCS activities associated with this project and is considered that PWCS complies with these Conditions of Consent. PWCS is also considered to be compliant with the conditions outlined in their Environment Protection Licence No Schedule 2 of Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 3 for the KCT 120 Mtpa upgrade of PWCS operations lists 55 Conditions of Approval. URS have conducted an environmental compliance audit of the PWCS operations associated with the requirements of these Approval Conditions. URS have confirmed by undertaking this compliance audit that the Approval Conditions are being addressed and implemented by PWCS in a satisfactory manner. URS note that a number of the Conditions of Consent associated with the Development Application DA No. 35/96 have effectively been superseded by Conditions attached to PA 06_0189 MOD 3 which have been triggered by the initiation of the operational phase of the project. Also with the completion of construction activities there are a number of conditions within PA 06_0189 MOD 3 which were no longer considered relevant as they relate solely to the construction activities. These Conditions have not been addressed in this audit and are considered closed. It is therefore URS opinion that, based on the information provided at the time of the audit, observations made during the site visit on 28 July 2015 and the content of files and reports reviewed on site and provided post site inspection that PWCS currently complies with the Conditions of Consent associated with the Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 3 at KCT. The following opportunities for improvement associated with site management are noted: /01/01

10 Opportunity for Improvement: Documentation associated with the condition contained within PWCS Compliance Register includes: - 5 Pt Plan June Update completed - HV Rail Transport Systen join Efficiency Study Final Report - HV Coal Export Coal Movement System Framework Study - Coal Handling Services Agreement - Operating Protocols Supporting conditions for provisions of coal handling services - Operating Agreement between PWCS and Freight Rail These documents were submitted to regulators and signed in 1997 but there is no evidence of review or update of these plans. PWCS should determine whether these documents are relevant and if they require a review and update. In April 2015 according to the Water Management (06-39) Monthly Report - APRIL 2015 Coalbridge Operations Pty Ltd (Coalbridge 04/15) the site received heavy rain which caused a number of issues on site in relation to water management. The report (Coalbridge 04/15) verified that the water discharged from site generally met criteria for a rainfall event; however, it is recommended that the PWCS undertake an investigation to understand the root cause of these issues and how the system can be improved to prevent reoccurrence. Issues reportedly included: - malfunctioning alarms - sensor errors - automated system failures; and - manned system process failures, such as pump relocations and notification processes. As per DPE dated 26 September 2014 management plans can be updated without approval if there is no material change. It is therefore an opportunity that any updated plans be placed on the website so as to inform the community of site processes and to eliminate any potential confusion in relation to community engagement. The refuel area for the site should be assessed to determine if it meets AS The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids (AS1940) requirements and has sufficient bunding and mitigation measures for a refuelling site. This audit did not include, and was not required, to include an assessment of AS1940 requirements. Observation: While the management system appears to be predominantly discoverable electronically it was noted that there were a number of tracking registers for approvals which could lead to confusion. It is understood that the PWCS is in the process of converting their management processes to an online database system (MAXIMO HSE) at which point there is an opportunity to archive many of these registers and reportedly the Maximo system will manage the register /01/01

11 The previous air quality environmental monitoring procedure (Environmental Operating Procedure EOP01 Air Quality) was sent to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for comment in June 2012 If the EPA provide comment and material changes between EOP01 and StepSafe are identified then it is recommended the revised procedure should be resubmited to the EPA for comment. A review of the 2013/2014 audit findings and opportunities for improvement was undertaken and it was noted during the audit that the majority of opportunities for improvement had been implemented by PWCS /01/01

12

13 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Port Waratah Coal Services Ltd (PWCS) owns and operates two deep water coal loading terminals in the Port of Newcastle, PWCS - Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) and PWCS Carrington Coal Terminal (CCT). This consent compliance audit is for KCT for the period covering August 2014 to July KCT covers an area of 265 hectares and began operating in 1984 with an initial ship loading capacity of 15 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Coal received at KCT is delivered by rail into a receival facility located on the northern edge of the terminal. Four coal stockpiles are served by a series of conveyors, stackers and reclaimers to feed four deep water berths located on the northern bank of the Hunter River South Arm. Expansion works associated with Stages 1-4 of the coal loading facility have been completed. Consent for Stages 1 and 2 for PWCS - Kooragang was granted by the Minister for Public Works in 1982 with the terminal being progressively developed, with Stages 1 and 2 being completed in In December 1997 PWCS commenced construction of the Stage 3 Expansion of the KCT, taking PWCS total coal loading capacity to 102 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa), comprising 25 Mtpa at Carrington and 77 Mtpa at Kooragang. In 2007, PWCS was granted approval to increase the throughput capacity of KCT to 120 Mtpa. Subsequent modifications to this approval were issued, known as the Stage 4 Project, to improve coal handling efficiency and sprint capacity while maintaining a nominal throughput capacity of 120 Mtpa. 1.2 Development Consent for Stage 3 An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage 3 Expansion of PWCS - Kooragang was prepared in A development application (DA No. 35/96) was submitted to the Minister for the Department of Planning (now DPE), then the Minister for the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 34 in the same year, with consent being granted in late 1996 subject to 43 Conditions (Appendix A). Following legal challenges, NSW State Government legislation confirmed consent in July 1997, subject to the original 43 conditions, approving the facility to operate on a 24 hour basis, 7 days per week, throughout the year. 1.3 KCT Expansion to 120 Mtpa Subsequent to the Stage 3 Expansion works, on 13 April 2007 PWCS was granted Approval by the Minister of Planning (Application 06_0189) to undertake major project works comprising the upgrade and improvement of existing infrastructure to allow an increased throughput capacity of 120 Mtpa at KCT, referred to as the KCT 120 Mtpa PA. On 31 May 2010 Project Approval 06_0189 was modified (06_0189 MOD 1) to incorporate the construction and operation of additional coal handling infrastructure at KCT, known as the Stage 4 Project. A further modification to this approval (06_0189 MOD 2) was issued on 05 April 2012 for a minor realignment of the rail infrastructure already approved. However, it is noted that the Stage 4 works did not alter the throughput capacity of 120 Mtpa /01/01 1

14 Activities covered by the Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 2) relate specifically to development associated with the proposed increase in throughput of the Coal Terminal to 120 Mtpa, including improvements in operational efficiencies, upgrades and/ or improvements to plant and equipment. Fifty five conditions of approval are listed in Schedule 2 of the modified approval documents. Commencement of construction activities associated with the project is described in the Project Approval 06_0189 as commencement of physical upgrades and / or improvements beyond those approved as part of the Stage 3 Expansion, which took place on 28th April Commencement of operations is described as when operations achieve a throughput capacity exceeding 77 Mtpa, which occurred on 21/04/2012. As a result of this increase in capacity, URS understands that many of the environmental controls as nominated in the modified KCT 120 Mtpa PA now effectively supersede the related environmental controls as nominated in the KCT Stage 3 Development Consent. The Project Approval (06_0189) was modified a third time (06_0189 MOD 3) specifically to allow for changes in land tenure associated with the site. 1.4 Independent Annual Environmental Audit In accordance with the conditions attached to the Minister s consent for the Stage 3 Expansion of the Kooragang Coal Terminal operations (Condition 32), PWCS is required to submit an independent Annual Environmental Audit Report (AEAR) by 23 August 2015 to DPE. It is also a condition of Project Approval 06_0189 MOD 3 (Condition 5.1c) that an independent environmental compliance audit of the activities associated with the proposed upgrade be undertaken at least annually, for submission to the DPE. The aim is to determine whether PWCS complies with the requirements set out in the Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3) for the operation of the 120 Mtpa at KCT. In order to streamline the auditing process associated with the expansion, upgrade and operation of the coal loading facility, the DPE have previously agreed to PWCS combining the above two compliance audits to produce a single audit report. PWCS engaged the services of URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) to undertake the 2015 combined audit. A letter submitted to DPE on the 12 August 2014 detailed the proposed lead auditor associated with the Independent Environmental Audit (IEA). Acceptance of the lead auditor by the DPE was confirmed in a letter dated (28 January 2015). This report presents the results of combined environmental compliance audits, covering the period August 2014 until 28 th July 2015 (the audit period). 1.5 Report Structure This audit report is structured as follows: Section 1.0 provides the background to the audit, including a brief description of the KCT facility, and a guide to the structure of the report; Section 2.0 outlines the scope of works and methodology of undertaking the audit; /01/01 2

15 Section 3.0 presents a tabulated summary of the compliance status of each condition attached to development application (DA35/96) for the Stage 3 Expansion (see below for status explanation). Each table entry includes details of the specific licence/condition (as appropriate), the current status and relevant comments in relation to compliance status. It also details the continued relevance associated with the Condition. Section 4.0 presents a tabulated summary of the compliance status of each condition attached to the KCT120 Mtpa Modified Project Approval PA MOD 3. Each table entry includes details of the specific licence/condition (as appropriate), the current status and relevant comments in relation to compliance status. Section 5.0 presents a tabulated summary of the compliance status of each condition attached to Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 1552 and a review of other approvals, licences and permits relevant to the operation of the KCT facility. Each table entry includes details of the specific licence/condition (as appropriate), the current status and relevant comments in relation to compliance status. Section 6.0 provides conclusions and recommendations from both the site visit, discussion with key staff and results of the desktop review. The status of compliance of the KCT activities with the conditions of approval have been expressed in the audit tables using the following terminology: Table 1-1 Status of Compliance Terminology Status Description Compliant Implies compliance with the intent and/or requirement of the approval condition. Not Compliant The specific requirement of the consent condition was not met. Not Triggered The condition had not been activated because the activity had not yet commenced, or the condition is not currently triggered because of timing of the requirements (e.g. post mining requirements). Not Applicable (N/A) The condition is not actioned because of specific circumstance. Closed The condition is no longer relevant to the site as the condition has been superseded by another condition or activities associated with the Condition, such as construction, have been completed /01/01 3

16

17 2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Objectives The objective of the Stage 3 Expansion annual compliance audit is to provide independent advice to the Director-General (Secretary) that PWCS has conducted both the construction of the Stage 3 Expansion and its operation of the Kooragang Coal Terminal in accordance with the conditions of consent for the works. The objective of the KCT120 Mtpa annual compliance audit is to provide independent advice to the Director-General (now the Secretary) that PWCS has conducted activities associated with the modified Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3) for the increase in coal throughput at the facility at Kooragang Coal Terminal in accordance with the conditions of consent for the Project. 2.2 Scope of Works In line with the requirements stipulated in the conditions of consent, this combined audit report contains the following: A review of the coal terminal s performance against the conditions of consent. A review of the coal terminal s performance against those conditions associated with relevant licences, construction certificates and other consents. A review of information on measures taken by PWCS to address any departures from these various conditions. An aggregation of the quarterly monitoring reports to provide an annual monitoring report. A summary of the register of community enquiries and complaints received from members of the public and actions taken by PWCS in response to such enquiries. 2.3 Personnel and Timing The combined compliance audit was undertaken by Ian Irwin, Lead Auditor and Katherine Hutton, Auditor Assistant. The audit was conducted on 28 July 2015 with the review of documentation and the audit report prepared during August A site visit was made on Tuesday 28 July 2015, which included opening and closing meetings by the audit team (refer to Appendix F) a briefing on the current status of operational activities by Ben Lowder (PWCS Environmental Engineers) and Eden Simic (PWCS Specialist Advisor Environment) and an accompanied inspection of the site (refer to Appendix E). 2.4 Audit Methodology The combined audit methodology comprised the following components: A review of activities associated with Kooragang Coal Terminal. A review of relevant documentation retained on file by PWCS. A visit to the facility to allow field inspection of critical aspects of operation. Interviews with relevant PWCS staff members using a checklist prepared in advance /01/01 5

18 Follow up with requests for further information where required. 2.5 Documentation The documentation that was reviewed included, but was not limited to the following: NSW Government Approval for Major Project Application MP 06_0189 MOD 3. NSW Government Development Consent DA 35/96. Environment Protection Licence No PWCS Community Enquiry Register, with KCT related enquiries for the period August 2014 to July PWCS Quarterly Monitoring Reports for each quarter in the audit period. Environmental monitoring data and reports prepared by independent sub-contractors. Reports of regular site inspection visits, both by independent parties and by PWCS environmental staff. PWCS Coal Terminal Information Handbook Revision 5.1 (December 2011). PWCS Operation Environmental Management Plan Revision 2 (May 2012) and subsequent sub-plans PWCS Operation Environmental Management Plan Revision 1 (April 2013) and subsequent sub-plans. Minter Ellison Consent Advice (15 Nov 2010). Additional PWCS project documentation associated with the Approval Conditions, including: PWCS STEPsafe Operating Procedures; maintenance records; related management plans; meeting minutes; training records; and environmental improvement programs etc. The majority of these documents were located in a comprehensive set of files supplied by PWCS, supplied to the audit team during or subsequent to the audit or were available for viewing on the PWCS website. Additional back-up information was provided on request during or after the site inspection and interviews. Copies of the consent conditions, the KCT Community Enquiries Register and an aggregation of Stage 3 quarterly monitoring reports are attached as Appendices A, B, C and D respectively. Also attached are site layout and surveillance photographs, the attendance sheets for the audit s opening and closing meeting and Final Occupancy Certificate (Appendices E, F and G respectively). It should be noted that during the audit the most recent revision of required management plans and the approved version submitted to the regulators were reviewed, however, if the most /01/01 6

19 recent version had not been submitted for approval by the regulators only the version approved by DPE was reviewed /01/01 7

20

21 3 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - STAGE 3 EXPANSION (DA 35/96) 3.1 Development Consent Conditions (DPE) The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (now DPE) determined the development application (DA35/96) in accordance with Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by granting consent subject to 43 conditions. The purpose of these conditions is to: To confirm and clarify the terms of development consent; To ensure airborne emissions and noise from the proposal are within prescribed acceptable limits; To ensure that potential hazards do not pose an unacceptable risk both on-site and offsite; To ensure best management practices and technology are adopted in the operation of the facility; To protect the environment and amenity of the locality both during construction and operation of the plant; To provide for environmental monitoring and reporting of the future performance of the development. PWCS s performance in respect of each of the 43 conditions is summarised in Section Community Enquiries A register of Community Enquiries was established in accordance with Conditions 37, 38 and 39 of the Stage 3 Expansion Consent 35/96. A summary of the key components of this register is attached in Appendix C. It was noted that during the current audit period (August 2014 to July 2015), there were two entries for KCT entered on the register, none of which related directly to onsite operations. 3.3 Stage 3 Expansion (DA 35/96) Closed Conditions The following Conditions for DA 35/96 where assessed as closed during the last audit and as such were not assessed during the audit. Conditions 3 15, 17 19, and /01/01 9

22 3.4 Assessment of Compliance Stage 3 Expansion (DA 35/96) Cond. No. Condition 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations General 1. The Applicant shall carry out the development generally in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated September 1996, the Application Form and as further modified by the following conditions. Any alteration, variation or extension of the development shall require the further consent of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. 2. Upon commissioning of the development encompassed by DA No. 35/96 - and as modified by this instrument of consent, the Applicant shall certify in writing to the Director-General that it has complied with this consent and other statutory requirements. Landscaping 16. The Applicant shall ensure that the landscape areas are kept free of parked vehicles, stored goods, garbage or waste materials and are permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council. Parking 20. The Applicant shall ensure that all parking bays within the existing on-site parking areas are permanently marked out on the pavement surface to the satisfaction of Council. Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant As per the recommendations from last year and as detailed to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in the letter from PWCS dated 21 August 2014 the following Conditions are considered closed and as such have not been assessed as part of the audit. Conditions 3 15, 17 19, and The development has been commissioned and remaining conditions were audited last year ( ) and certification to the Secretary (formerly the DG) was sighted for Stage 3 Expansion (DA 35/96) independent compliance assessment audit. The Operations EM Program (sighted) requires that regular inspections of landscaped areas be undertaken and documented. Independent inspections are conducted on behalf of PWCS on a fortnightly basis and hard copies filed in the Environmental filing system. Examples of inspection reports undertaken by the contractor (Coalbridge) for the months of January and May 2015 were reviewed These inspections indicated continued compliance with the requirements for management of the landscaped areas. During the site inspection, the landscaped areas were noted as being maintained in a tidy condition, free of goods, waste, parked vehicles and were generally free of litter. The requirements associated with Council satisfaction has not been confirmed by Council, however evidence of supply of the Independent Environmental Audit was sent to Council on the 24/8/14 demonstrating the level of compliance associated with DA 35/96. During the site visit, the existing permanent parking bays were noted to be clearly marked out in each of the car parking areas viewed. URS understand from the previous site audit ( ) that the permanent markings were previously confirmed as meeting the standards required by Newcastle City Council /01/01 10

23 Cond. No. Condition 21. The Applicant shall ensure that all existing on-site car parking areas, truck loading/ unloading areas, driveways and turning areas are maintained clear of obstruction and are used exclusively for purposes of car parking, loading and unloading and vehicle access respectively and under no circumstances are such areas to be used for the storage of goods or waste materials. Transportation 22. The Applicant shall in consultation with Freight Rail develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of the Kooragang Coal Terminal s rail unloading operations on delays to trains along the delivery route Compliance Status Compliant Compliant 2015 Recommendations / observations This aspect is also covered by the regular inspections carried out by the contractors (Coalbridge) for the months of January and May The satisfaction of Council has not been confirmed, however evidence of supply of the Independent Environmental Audit was sent to Council on the 24/8/14. During the site visit, parking areas were observed to be adequately maintained and the car park areas used for the appropriate purpose. Independent inspections are conducted by Coalbridge on behalf of PWCS on a fortnightly basis and hard copies are filed in the Environmental filing system. Examples of these were viewed (dated 01/15, 05/15), indicating continued compliance with the relevant conditions. Evidence of documentation associated with the development of plans for monitoring and reporting on the performance were sighted and evidence of regular reviews of procedures to monitor and report on train unloading performance are included in the Quarterly Monitoring Reports (attached to this report as Appendix D). Documented evidence of the establishment by the HVCCC of the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Improvement Syndicate to manage improvements across the supply chain was also sighted. Opportunity for Improvement: Documentation associated with the condition contained within PWCS Compliance Register includes: 5 Pt Plan June Update completed HV Rail Transport Systen join Efficiency Study Final Report HV Coal Export Coal Movement System Framework Study Coal Handling Services Agreement Operating Protocols Supporting conditions for provisions of coal handling services Operating Agreement between PWCS and Freight Rail These documents were all submitted to regulators and signed in 1997 but there is no evidence of review or update of these plans. PWCS to determine whether these documents are still relevant and if they require a review and update /01/01 11

24 Cond. No. Condition 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations Independent Environmental Audit 34. The audit shall be carried out at the Applicant s expense and be conducted by a duly qualified independent person or a team approved by the Director General. Compliant In response to alternate auditor letter dated 12-Aug-14, acceptance by delegate of the Secretary DPE was sighted 28/1/15 (refer to file) Undertaking of Works 41. The Applicant shall carry out or implement all building and site works, as well as the written undertakings or obligations indicated in the Environmental Impact Statement or otherwise required under the terms of this consent or to the satisfaction of the Director General and Council prior to commencement of Stage 3 operations. Compliant and Closed An OFI was raised in relation to this issue in the Audit and the Final Occupancy certificate from Newcastle City Council was granted on 9-Apr-2015 (refer to Appendix G) As a result the auditor believes that this condition is now closed and that it will be unnecessary to assess in future audits. Water Use 42. The Applicant shall continue discussions with Hunter Water Corporation or other appropriate bodies regarding the possible use of treated waste water for dust suppression or other purposes on the site. Disputes 43. Any dispute arising between any of the parties in respect of these conditions shall be referred to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (now DoP) for determination. Compliant Compliant PWCS stated that they continue to investigate the options for the use of treated wastewater and other alternative water sources, to reduce the consumption of potable water on site. At present, PWCS consider that the variations in demand caused by seasonal and weather controls was difficult to match with the planned supply of treated wastewater by Hunter Water Corporation (HWC), and that water storage would be one of the key constricting areas. PWCS has undertaken discussions with Cargill in relation to treated water use, however consistency of demand and quality requirements for the PWCS site has meant that this option has not been progressed. PWCS stated that no disputes have arisen during the audit period /01/01 12

25 /01/01 13

26

27 4 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - KCT 120 MTPA (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) 4.1 Compliance Assessment The NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Formerly the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) determined the development application in accordance with Section 75J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by granting approval (PA 06_0189) subject to 48 conditions. Modifications to this Approval were approved on 31/5/2010 (MOD 1), 05/04/2012 (MOD 2), and 26/11/2012 (MOD 3), with changes to a number of conditions and the addition of several others. PWCS s compliance performance in respect of each of the 55 conditions in the modified approval (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) is summarised in Section Complaints and Enquiries A register of Community Enquiries was established in accordance with Condition 6.3 of the 120 Mtpa Project Approval. The relevant entries for the KCT facility for the current audit period are presented in Appendix C. 4.3 KCT 120 MTPA (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) Closed Conditions The following Conditions for PA 06_0189 MOD 3 where assessed as closed during the last audit and as such were not assessed during the audit. Conditions 2.7, 2.14, 2.15, 7.2 and /01/01 15

28 4.4 Assessment of Approval Conditions: KCT 120 Mtpa (PA 06_0189 MOD 3) 1 ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS Terms of Project Approval Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations The Proponent shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the: a) Major Project Application 06_0189; b) Environmental Assessment - Kooragang Coal Terminal Proposed Increase to Throughput Capacity, dated November 2006, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; c) Kooragang Coal Terminal Proposed Increase to Throughput Capacity - Response to Submissions Part A, dated January 2007, and Kooragang Coal Terminal Proposed Increase to Throughput Capacity - Response to Submissions Part B, dated January 2007, both prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; d) Kooragang Coal Terminal Stage 4 Project Fourth Dump Station & Fourth Shiploader, dated November 2009, prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; e) Kooragang Coal Terminal Stage 4 Project Fourth Dump Station & Fourth Shiploader, Response to Submissions, dated February 2010, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; f) Kooragang Coal Terminal Proposed Fourth Rail Loop Realignment, dated June 2011, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; and g) The conditions of this approval Compliant Each of the listed documents has been consulted, in the assessment of overall compliance with the conditions of this approval. PWCS maintain a Compliance Tracking Register to assist with monitoring of overall compliance with the DPE Consents and Approvals. This register identifies the relevant triggers, frequency and recurrence, responsible persons, due dates and compliance status. This register was sighted (last updated on July 2015). A separate register was noted for the EPL which was last reviewed August Evidence collected during the course of this environmental compliance audit is supportive of the fact that the Proponent is carrying out the project in accordance with the Project Approval, the Approval Conditions and related documents itemised in Condition 1.1. Compliance was demonstrated through the regular update of sections of the Compliance Registers, and submission and acceptance of Annual Compliance Reports to DPE. Observation: While the system seems to be predominantly discoverable electronically it was noted that there were a number of tracking registers for approvals which could lead to confusion. It is understood that the PWCS is in the process of converting their management processes to an online database system (MAXIMO HSE) at which point there is an opportunity to archive many of these registers and reportedly the Maximo system will manage the register In the event of an inconsistency between: a) the conditions of this approval and any document listed from condition 1.1a) to 1.1f) inclusive, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency; and b) any document listed from condition 1.1a) to 1.1f) inclusive, and any other document listed from condition 1.1a) to 1.1e) Compliant No inconsistencies have been identified between the various documents referred to in the Conditions. PWCS stated that any inconsistencies arising will be addressed as per the condition /01/01 16

29 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations inclusive, the most recent document shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency The Proponent shall comply with any reasonable requirement(s) of the Director-General arising from the Department s assessment of: a) any reports, plans or correspondence that are submitted in accordance with this approval; and b) the implementation of any actions or measures contained in these reports, plans or correspondence. Compliant An request from DPE on the requested the resubmission of the auditor approval correspondence for the audit. This was resubmitted via on the 08/10/14. In addition a request was made in relation to identification of a new Environmental Representative (ER) while Ms Simic was on extended leave or for PWCS to look at the re-negotiation of the condition to remove the word Operation from Condition 7.1 of this approval. Evidence was noted that Ms Simic had returned to work and as such the requirement for a replacement ER was not considered necessary and was communicated to DPE within a letter on the 27 th January PWCS stated that no other request for information of this nature had been received during the current audit period. Limits of Approval This approval shall lapse five years after the date on which it is granted, unless the works the subject of this approval are physically and substantially commenced on or before that time. Compliant The construction works which are the subject of this approval commenced in 2008 and were completed in The approval is therefore considered valid for operational management of the development The maximum export capacity from the upgraded coal terminal shall be limited to 120 million tonnes of coal per annum (Mtpa). Compliant PWCS provided monthly figures for throughput of coal at both terminals (and cumulative figures for successive twelve month running total periods). The output for the 12 month period 01/07/2014 until 30/06/2015 at the Kooragang facility was stated to be Mtpa, based on data obtained by draught surveys of each vessel leaving the berths. The NPC total for the same period for the combined PWCS terminals (Kooragang and Carrington) was given as Mt, based on information from cargo manifests. Statutory Requirements The Proponent shall ensure that all licences, permits and approvals are obtained and kept up-to-date as required throughout the life of the development. No condition of this approval removes the obligation for the Proponent to obtain, renew or comply with such licences, permits or approvals. The Proponent shall ensure that a copy of this approval and all Compliant Management of compliance with relevant licences, certificates, permits and approvals is achieved by use of a Compliance Register, which lists renewal dates, due dates and related requirements. A copy of this register was viewed (last updated April 2014). PWCS demonstrated that copies of this Approval (and related documents identified in Condition 1.1) are kept on Site and are available for inspection /01/01 17

30 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations relevant environmental approvals are available on the Site at all times during the project. on request to the Environment team and are also available on the PWCS IMS. No requests have been made during the audit period. A separate register was kept for the present Environment Protection Licence (EPL) (1552). No register was viewed for the bore licences or the Sea Dumping Permit (SD2008/1042) (both expired). A regulatory review register was also sighted which demonstrated a monthly review and summary of the environmental legislation considered by PWCS to be relevant to the site. The monthly reviews were reportedly undertaken against an subscription service to EnviroLaw The Proponent shall ensure that all practicable measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise harm to the environment as a result of the construction, operation, and where relevant, decommissioning of the development. Compliant PWCS have implemented an EMS to manage issues connected to the prevention or minimisation of harm to the environment as a result of their operations. The EMS covers the implementation of appropriate environmental Management Plans, Monitoring Programs and regular site inspections. As part of their EMS, PWCS maintain an Aspects, Impacts and Risk Register which is utilised to identify risks and controls to minimise impacts on the environment (viewed). This register is a component of the EMS and is reviewed annually (review date 15 Apr 2015). This process is reportedly used to establish objectives and targets for areas which show high residual risk. During the audit, the entries in the Aspects, Impacts and Risk Register were viewed on the IMS (a hard copy was also provided for review). As part of the Audit process management documentation for items with a residual risk of high or critical were reviewed. The investigation indicated that the practical measures detailed in the risk assessment to address risk had been established and were reportedly being implemented The Proponent shall ensure that all plant and equipment installed at the premises or used in conjunction with the project must be: a) Maintained in a proper and efficient condition; and b) Operated in a proper and efficient manner. Compliant As part of the review of Condition 1.7 above maintenance activities were reviewed and the information supplied would indicate that maintenance through the MAXIMO system was being undertaken /01/01 18

31 Conditions 2 SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Air Quality Impacts Odour 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations The proponent shall not permit any offensive odour, as defined under Section 129 of the PoEO Act 1997, to be emitted beyond the boundary of the site. Compliant PWCS stated that offensive odours would not normally be generated by any of the activities taking place on the site and that there were no records, complaints or other evidence of offensive odours being emitted from the site. PWCS also stated that the site Environmental Staff manage issues associated with the potential generation of odours as and when required to. PWCS indicated that the Operation Spontaneous Combustion Management Protocol (dated December 2011, sighted) included measures to manage the risk of spontaneous combustion in coal stockpiles which were static for longer periods, as well as in other materials stored on the site (such as coal spillage and waste piles, drying material from lagoon clean out operations) where increased risk of spontaneous combustion was a possibility. One entry on the community enquiry register for the period relates to odour, however it was considered based on location that this did not relate to PWCS activities and was subsequently closed. No detailed review of this Management plan was undertaken as part of the audit, however the available documentation on the website is still Dust Emissions The Proponent shall design, construct, commission, operate and maintain the project in a manner that minimises or prevents the emission of dust from the site, including wind blown and traffic generated dust. Compliant Specific operating procedures and management plans have been developed and implemented by PWCS to minimise dust emissions from the site activities. It was reported by site staff that Environmental Operating Procedures noted in the previous audit have been replaced by StepSafe documentation formats. StepSafe Environmental Management (Nov 2014) was sighted and noted to cover off on air quality management issues. The change to StepSafe was reported to be undertaken to come into line with other site processes and quality control requirements for review of documentation every two years. The previous approach to management of air quality had been presented /01/01 19

32 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations to OEH (now EPA) for comment. Examples of control measures implemented on the site were viewed during the site visit, These included recently sealed roadways, vehicle washdown, recently installed concrete lined channels, automated dust suppression systems for the coal stockpiles and train unloading areas, road sweepers, manual washdown locations, training and toolboxes in relation to dust management, ongoing investigation into improving the efficiency of water sprayers and the utilisation of current weather data when identifying potential problem areas. There were no complaints associated with the dust during the audit period at KCT Observation: The previous air quality environmental monitoring procedure (EOP01) was sent to the EPA for comment. If there are material change between EOP01 and StepSafe then it should be determined if there is a need to resubmit to the EPA. With the completion of construction there are reportedly minimal vehicles arriving or leaving site which have the potential to generate dust. However the requirement to undertake such processes is detailed in line with STEPsafe Standard There is currently no specific provision for inspections on arrival or departure at the site gate and this would only be introduced if it was considered necessary. Auditing of the main subcontractor for construction/maintenance works is undertaken by PWCS and examples of audits for November 2014 were sighted by the audit team Monitoring is on an as required basis, and no specific records were available for inspection. PWCS stated that no complaints had been received regarding this issue and none were viewed on the community enquiry register. Existing operational controls are utilised to monitor dust emissions beyond the site boundary (STEPsafe Standard and the PWCS Air Quality & Dust Management Plan) PWCS stated that no visible dust emissions had travelled beyond the site boundary during the audit period and that modifications to existing dust control practice was not yet a requirement. However, continual improvement was still being sought, for example in the operation of the All activities shall take all practicable measures to ensure that all vehicles entering or leaving the site, carrying a load that may generate dust, are covered at all times, except during loading or unloading. Any such vehicles shall be covered or enclosed in a manner that will prevent emissions of dust from the vehicles at all times, to the extent practicable. Compliant All activities on the site shall be undertaken with the objective of preventing visible emissions of dust beyond the boundary of the site. Should such visible dust emissions occur at any time, the Proponent shall identify and implement all practicable dust mitigation measures, including cessation of relevant works, as appropriate. Compliant /01/01 20

33 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations water sprayers on the coal stockpiles, as was demonstrated during the site visit. Water sprays were observed operating on a number of stockpiles during the site visit. Water washdown associated with coal deliveries was also noted in operation as well as additional manual water washdown facilities and automatic alarms associated with dust management. Not all internal roads were sealed however it was noted that PWCS has an Environmental Improvement Program 2015 which is identifies the sealing of internal roads, accountability, target due date and a priority status. It was reported by site personnel that the next environmental improvement Program is being finalised and this will include progressive areas for sealing within the rail loop The Proponent shall control dust emissions on all internal roads, trafficable areas and manoeuvring areas to minimise the potential for dust generation by sealing, or otherwise treating surfaces in a manner acceptable to the Director-General. Compliant Noise Impacts The Proponent shall minimise noise emissions from plant and equipment operated on the Site in relation to the project, according to the principles outlined in the NSW Government s Industrial Noise Policy. Compliant PWCS stated that noise emissions are monitored and managed during activities at the site. PWCS have implemented an EMS to manage issues connected to the prevention or minimisation of harm to the environment as a result of their operations, including the generation of excessive noise levels. The EMS covers the implementation of appropriate noise and vibration management plans, monitoring programs and regular site inspections. STEPsafe Standard Environmental Management references measures for the control of noise emissions from site activities. The KCT Operation Noise Management Plan (sighted, dated 17/02/2012) also covers the management and monitoring of noise generation from the facility. Tables 7 and 8 in this document describe the continuous noise improvement program and measures to be taken to facilitate the reduction of noise emissions, including both engineering controls and management controls. Management of the existing facility involves the monitoring of noise emissions beyond the site boundary and procedures for actions to be followed in the event that noise emissions exceeding EPL requirements and the limits set out in Condition 2.7. No community enquiries for KCT related to relevant noise issues for the site /01/01 21

34 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations Operation Noise The Proponent shall design, construct, operate and maintain the project to ensure that the noise contributions from the expanded coal loader do not exceed the maximum allowable noise contributions specified in Table 1 at those locations and during those periods indicated. The maximum allowable noise contributions apply under : a) meteorological conditions of: wind speeds up to 3 ms-1 at 10 metres above ground level; or b) temperature inversion conditions up to 3 o C per 100 metres and wind speeds up to 2ms-1 at 10 metres above the ground Compliant PWCS reported that noise emissions are managed by their staff during 24 hours per day activities and the KCT Operations Noise Management Plan have been developed to manage noise. Monitoring results from each of the locations listed in Table 1 are presented in the quarterly reports. Viewed Quarterly Noise Monitoring Reports prepared by independent contractors SLR Consulting: Kooragang Coal Terminal. Off-site Noise and On-site Sound Power Level Monitoring. Quarter Ending June 2015; Kooragang Coal Terminal. Off-site Noise and On-site Sound Power Level Monitoring. Quarter Ending March 2015; Kooragang Coal Terminal. Off-site Noise and On-site Sound Power Level Monitoring. Quarter Ending December 2014; Kooragang Coal Terminal. Off-site Noise and On-site Sound Power Level Monitoring. Quarter Ending September 2014; Table 1 Maximum Allowable Noise Contributions (db(a)) Day, Evening, Night - Night - 10:00pm to 7:00am Monday to Saturday At all times 10.00pm to 8.00am on Sundays and Public Holidays Location LAeq(15 minute) LAeq(night) LA1(1 minute) Fern Bay North Fern Bay West Fern Bay East Stockton West Stockton East Mayfield West Mayfield Carrington Each of these reports details that compliance with the criteria set out in the conditions has been met For the purpose of assessment of noise contributions specified under condition 2.8 of this consent, noise from the project shall be: a) measured at the most affected point on or within the Site boundary at the most sensitive receiver to determine compliance with LAeq(15 minute) night noise limits; b) measured at one metre from the dwelling façade to determine compliance with LA1(1 minute) noise limits; and c) subject to the modification factors provided in Section 4 of the New South Wales Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000), where applicable. Notwithstanding, should direct measurement of noise from the Compliant Table 1 in the Quarterly Monitoring Reports (viewed) describes the conditions and methodology for undertaking the noise monitoring and for assessing the contributions at specific locations. These reflect the recommendations in the approved Noise Monitoring Programme (part of the KCT Operations Noise Management Plan) and are in line with the requirements of the condition. Alternative assessment methods have not been required to date /01/01 22

35 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations development be impractical, the Proponent may employ an alternative noise assessment method deemed acceptable by the EPA (refer to Section 11 of the New South Wales Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000)). Details of such an alternative noise assessment method accepted by the EPA shall be submitted to the Director-General prior to the implementation of the assessment method. The Proponent shall investigate all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, as defined in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (EPA 2000), to reduce noise impacts from the upgraded coal terminal at Fern Bay and Stockton to achieve noise contributions of no greater than 43 db(a) (L AEQ,(night)) and 45 db(a) (L AEQ,(15 minutes)) under adverse meteorological conditions specified under Condition 2.8. A report on investigations shall be submitted to EPA and the Director- General within 12 months of commencement of works the subject of this approval and annually thereafter, unless otherwise agreed by EPA and the D-G, until levels specified above are achieved. A program for ongoing investigation and implementation of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures to reduce noise contributions at Fern Bay and Stockton shall be implemented. The program shall commence no later than six months following the EPA s agreement to a noise reduction program, unless otherwise agreed by EPA and the D-G Compliant Monitoring of noise emissions from the facility is ongoing and no exceedances of the stated limits have been recorded during the audit period, as described in the SLR quarterly reports. Details on the KCT Annual Noise Investigation Report (April 2015) and letters of submission to DPE and EPA were sighted as part of the audit. Train Noise Performance The Proponent shall take all necessary actions to ensure that trains operated on the site meet the noise performance criteria established under condition 2.8. Compliant Existing measures for monitoring noise are detailed in the Operation Noise Management Plan (sighted) and relevant results reported in the quarterly monitoring reports (attached as Appendix D). Noise monitoring is undertaken each quarter to measure emission levels with the performance criteria. Activities associated with the train operations are included in the attended noise monitoring, though not specifically targeted. No exceedances of the performance criteria have been reported during the audit period. Soil and Water Quality Impacts Except as may be expressly provided under the provisions of an EPL for the project, the Proponent shall comply with section 120 of the PoEO Act 1997 which prohibits the pollution of waters. Compliant A review of EPL site indicated no PINs for the audit period The works to address the previous audit PIN issued by the EPA in 2013/2014 were in the process of being completed. The works included a cut off drain and an automated wheel wash system. At the time of the audit /01/01 23

36 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations the system had reportedly not been commissioned Opportunity for Improvement: In April 2015 according to the monthly water management report the site received heavy rain which caused a number of issues on site in relation to water management. While the report verified that the water discharged from site generally met criteria for a rainfall event it is recommended that the PWCS undertake an investigation to understand how these issues occurred and how and/or if the system can be improved to prevent them from reoccurring. Issues reportedly included: malfunctioning alarms sensor errors automated system failures; and manned system process failures, such as pump relocations and notification processes. The EPL (1552) has established discharge points associated with the Site and as such this issue is covered in Section 5 Table 5.3. It is also noted that in April a storm event occurred that exceeded the 1 in 100 year event and discharges occurred from site The Proponent shall not permit the discharge of any water from the site to the Hunter River unless expressly provided under the provisions of an EPL, or when a storm event exceeds a 1 in 100 year ARI event or after prolonged wet weather equivalent to this event. Compliant Operational Soil and Water Management The Proponent shall maximise the capture and re-use of storm water on site for beneficial purposes such as dust control on coal stockpiles. Compliant PWCS reported that the existing stormwater storage system is designed to provide sufficient capacity for the approved KCT works. PWCS management also reported that it was in their interest to maximise the utilisation of all available water on site before the need to purchase water from HWC, and that there is a continual improvement program to maximise capture and overall storage capacity. A table summarising all water management infrastructure at the KCT site was available for review /01/01 24

37 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations In the event that storm water run off collection cannot meet the water demands of the site, treated waste water, if available from the relevant water authority, shall be used preferentially over potable water for the purposes of dust control, unless otherwise agreed by the D-G. Compliant Evidence was submitted for a number of sources that have been investigated in relation to water reuse such as HWC and Cargil s however the suitability, quality and the requirements for constant and continual supply by the suppliers has meant that these sources have proved unsuitable. PWCS stated that they were continuing to investigate suitable sources where they became available Waste Generation and Management All waste materials removed from the site shall only be directed to a waste management facility lawfully permitted to accept the materials. Compliant A review of the site OEMP references the Waste Management Plan (14 March 2013) and the STEPsafe Standard Waste Management addressed the requirements for disposal. PWCS indicated that waste materials removal from the site was undertaken by a licensed contractor (JR Richards). Collated data for site waste streams for the audit period was viewed (monthly data up to June 2015) and the overall rating for recycled material was noted at 83.5% for the year to date for Except as expressly permitted in an EPL applicable to the project, waste shall not be received at the site for storage, treatment, processing, reprocessing or disposal on the site. Compliant PWCS stated that no wastes are received on the site and that no incident reports or complaints have been raised in relation to unauthorised waste handling or disposal at any part of the site. Visual Impacts The Proponent shall ensure that all new external lighting associated with the project is mounted, screened and directed in such a manner so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding land and water uses. The lighting shall be the minimum level of illumination necessary, and be in general accordance with the latest version of AS Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Compliant PWCS stated that temporary lights were being utilised on site as required, methodology of use is detailed in the Environmental Management StepSafe Procedure PWCS indicated that no enquiries or complaints have been received in regard to visual impacts during the audit period. Conveyor Bridge The Stage 4 Project conveyor bridge and its approaches over Teal Street shall be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum of 6.5m vertical height clearance from the top of the Teal Street pavement to the underside of the bridge structure. Maintenance activities required for the bridge structure shall be carried out from Not triggered The conveyor bridge was not included in the previous construction phase and with construction works reportedly completed it is not expected that this requirement will be triggered in the future /01/01 25

38 Conditions within / on the structure and impacts of such activities minimised within the road reserve. The Proponent shall provide details of the maintenance policy for the proposed conveyor to the RMS and obtain its agreement regarding the ongoing maintenance of the bridge structure. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDITING Ambient Dust Monitoring 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations Prior to the commencement of operation of the project, the Proponent shall develop and submit for approval of the D-G and EPA, an Ambient Dust Monitoring Program (ADMP), to outline how the ambient dust impacts of the project will be monitored. The program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) identification of an integrated air quality monitoring network, developed in consultation with the owner/ operator of the proposed NCIG Coal Export Terminal; b) locations, frequencies and methods for monitoring total suspended particles, PM10 and deposited particulate matter; c) provision for the use of at least four hi-volume air samplers (HVAS), four dust depositional gauges and a meteorological station capable of monitoring wind direction and speed in accordance with AM-1 Guide to Siting of Sampling Units (AS ); AM-2 Guide for Horizontal Measurement of Wind for Air Quality Applications (AS ); and AM-4 On-Site Meteorological Monitoring Program Guidance for Regulatory Modelling Applications. d) investigation of the use of Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Samplers (TEOMS) as part of the integrated air quality monitoring network. Should the Proponent consider TEOMS not to be required, the Proponent may seek approval from both the Director-General and the DECC to exclude this requirement. In seeking such an exclusion, the Proponent s reasons for the exclusion shall be provided and be fully justified; e) provided that the use of TEOMS is proven to be justified (as outlined in d) above), the Proponent shall utilise real-time monitoring data to inform environmental management decisions associated with the project; f) a framework for identifying actual and potential dust impacts, and for applying proactive and reactive mitigation and management measures to address those impacts; g) provision for independent review and auditing of the Program; and h) mechanisms for updating the Program as may be required from Compliant An Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP), incorporating an Ambient Dust Monitoring Program has been developed and was submitted prior to the commencement of 120 Mtpa operations. Viewed PWCS document Operation Dust Management Plan_Rev 4 (dated April 2014) incorporating Section 4 - Air Quality and Dust Monitoring Program Previous audits have determined the approval of the management plan and the updated version would appear to be consistent with the approved version /01/01 26

39 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations time to time Following one full year of data collection in accordance with an approved ADMP (refer condition 3.1), the Proponent shall undertake a model validation study to review TSP, PM10 and dust deposition levels to assess compliance with the dust impact predictions made in the documents referred to under Condition 1.1 and with applicable ambient air quality goals. The model validation study shall be taken in accordance with Approved Methods and Guidance for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (EPA 2001), and any specific requirements of EPA. Compliant and Closed Letter received from DPE on the 31 March 2015 indicated that Recorded air quality parameters measured were consistent with predicted levels and therefore no additional measures are considered necessary; and That the Environment Protection Authority was provided with a copy of the report and did not make any comments. As such the auditor considers this condition has been met and is considered closed Within 28 days of conducting the dust validation study referred to under Condition 3.2, the Proponent shall provide the D-G and the EPA with a copy of the report. If the dust validation study identifies significant deviance from the predictions made in the documents referred to under Condition 1.1 or any exceedence with ambient air quality goals, the Proponent shall clearly indicate who would implement these measures, when these measures would be implemented, and how the effectiveness of these measured would be assessed and reported to the D-G. Compliant and Closed As above Noise Auditing Within 90 days of the Commencement of Operations and following the commissioning of the Stage 4 Project, as modified in accordance with Condition 1.1f) or as otherwise agreed by the D-G, and during a period in which the project is operating under normal operating conditions, the Proponent shall undertake a program to confirm the noise performance of the project. The noise program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) noise monitoring, consistent with the guidelines provided in the New South Wales Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000), to assess compliance with condition 2.8 of this consent. b) methodologies, locations and frequencies for noise monitoring; c) identification of monitoring sites at which pre- and postproject noise levels can be ascertained; d) details of any complaints and enquiries received in relation Compliant and Closed PWCS advised that the 90 day period was triggered on 21 April A Copy of KCT 120 Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3) Condition 3.4 Noise Audit Report by SLR, dated 23/07/2012. The requirements of this condition were seen to be present in the report as follows: Sections 3 and 5 of the report address the noise monitoring approach; Sections 3 and 4 of the report address the monitoring methodologies; Section 2 of the report identifies the monitoring locations; Section 8 of the report outlines details of complaints and enquiries received; Section 7 of the report addresses night time use of alarm systems; Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the report address the overall compliance with limits set in condition 2.8; Section 9 of the report addresses additional noise mitigation measures /01/01 27

40 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations to noise generated by the project within the first 90 days of operation; e) an assessment of night-time use of audible alarm systems; f) a statement of whether the Site is in compliance with noise limits in condition 2.8; g) any additional noise mitigation measures and timetables for implementation. The 90 day noise study for the final upgrade under the approval for completed Project th dump was reported to have been completed and submitted to DPE. Evidence of the report and of submission documentation was sighted during the audit Within 28 days of conducting the noise monitoring referred to under Condition 3.4, or as otherwise agreed by the D-G, the Proponent shall provide the D-G and the EPA with a copy of the report. If the noise monitoring report identifies any non-compliance with the noise limits imposed under this approval (Condition 2.8), the Proponent shall detail what additional measures would be implemented to ensure compliance, clearly indicating who would implement these measures, when these measures would be implemented, and how the effectiveness of these measures would be measured and reported to the D-G. Compliant and Closed PWCS confirmed submission of the noise audit report to the DPE on 03/08/2012 (viewed copies of cover letters from PWCS to DPE (dated 03/08/2012) and to OEH (dated 03/08/2012) accompanying the submission of the report. It is noted that the report concluded that no additional measures would be required SLR (2015). PWCS also stated that they intended to further review the noise impacts and effectiveness of control measures on completion of Project 145. The 90 day noise study for the final upgrade under the approval for completed Project th dump was reported to have been completed and submitted to DPE. Evidence of the report and of submission documentation was sighted during the audit 4 COORDINATION OF PORT WORKS AND COAL EXPORT ACTIVITIES Coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol Prior to the commencement of construction, or as otherwise agreed by the D-G, the Proponent shall develop, in consultation with owner/operator of the NCIG Coal Export Terminal, a coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol to provide a framework for the coordinated and cooperative monitoring and management of environmental impacts from the developments. The Protocol shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) procedures for access to, and provision of, monitoring data from each development, particularly in relation to dust and noise emissions; b) the respective remediation and redevelopment works; c) arrangements for coordinated and cooperative monitoring of ambient environmental impacts, including agreements relating to sharing of monitoring networks/ infrastructure, Compliant A revised coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol (EMMP) September 2013 was sighted. Sharing of data and information was noted in the Meeting Minutes for 14/4/15 where operational issues, community, noise and dust monitoring was reportedly discussed /01/01 28

41 Conditions coordinated interpretation of monitoring results and coordination dissemination of monitoring results to relevant parties; d) measures to ensure a coordinated and cooperative approach to the management of common or cumulative environmental impacts from the developments; e) arrangements for communication between the parties, including designated contact persons and contact details; f) notification procedures in the event of an incident at either development that may impact on the other development, or generate a significant common or cumulative impact; g) any agreement for participation in the development of any of the management plans or monitoring programs required under this approval; h) mechanism for review of the Protocol from time to time; i) and such other matters as the parties may agree. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Protocol to the D-G and the EPA as soon as practicable after agreement on the Terms of the protocol. Coordination of Cumulative Dust Studies 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations The Proponent shall participate in any cumulative dust study that may be commissioned by the Dept, in consultation with EPA. Any such study shall be focussed on cumulative dust impacts from major port and industrial sources in the Lower Hunter Estuary on potentially affected residential and sensitive receptors, with specific reference to receptors in Fern Bay, Stockton, Mayfield and Carrington. The extent of the Proponent s involvement in such a study shall be agreed with and to the satisfaction of the D-G, and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: provision of monitoring data associated with the environmental performance of the project; provision of management and auditing documentation associated with the project and relevant to the study; access to the project and relevant technical and environmental experts associated with the project; arrangements for any financial contributions to cover the reasonable expenses associated with the study; and such other matters as the Proponent and the Director- Not triggered PWCS stated that no cumulative dust study has yet been commissioned. This is to be initiated by the Department as required /01/01 29

42 General may agree Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations 5 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND TRACKING Compliance Tracking Program The Proponent shall develop and implement a Compliance Tracking Program to track compliance with the requirements of this approval. The Program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: Provisions for periodic review of the compliance status of the project against the requirements of this approval; Provisions for periodic reporting of compliance status to the D- G; A program for independent environmental auditing at least annually, or as otherwise agreed by the D-G, in accordance with ISO 19011:2002 Guidelines for Quality and/or Environmental Management Systems Auditing, and Mechanisms for rectifying any non-compliance identified during environmental auditing or review of compliance.. Compliant The Compliance Tracking Program developed and implemented by PWCS included a Compliance Register, the Quarterly Monitoring Reports and annual independent environmental compliance audit reports. PWCS stated that the tracking program was updated typically on a quarterly basis, as a minimum, or more often if necessary. Hard copies of the Compliance Tracking Program tables (Compliance Register) and Tracking System Flowcharts were viewed. Periodic reporting of the compliance status is attained by providing a copy of the annual independent compliance audit report to the D-G on completion. The process of conversion to a computer database system is reportedly underway which will manage the process more effectively. Presently data is kept in the IMS folder on the PWCS server and the historic extent and effectiveness of this process was not confirmed as part of this audit only that the relevant information associated with the audit period was available on request. 6 COMMUNITY INFORMATION, CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT Subject to commercial confidentiality, the Proponent shall make all documents required under this approval available for public inspection on request. Compliant PWCS indicated that hard copies of documents required by the project approval can be viewed by the public on request at the PWCS offices. Scrutiny of the PWCS web-site confirmed that a range of documents associated with the Stage 4 development were available for view and download by the public. It is noted that many of the Stage 4 environmental management and approval documents can also be accessed on the NSW DPE website. While the available data has been streamlined to address only those documents that are required it is still noted that the approved management plans not the latest versions are on the website /01/01 30

43 Conditions Complaints and Enquiries Procedure 2015 Compliance Status Opportunity for Improvement: 2015 Recommendations / observations As per DPE dated 26 Sept 2014 management plans can be updated without approval if there is no material change. It is therefore an opportunity that any updated plans be placed on the website so as to effectively inform the community of present processes and to eliminate any confusion in relation to community engagement Prior to the commencement of the construction project, the Proponent shall ensure that the following are available for community complaints and enquiries for the life of the project (including construction and operation): Telephone number for complaints and enquiries; Postal address for written complaints and enquiries; address for electronic complaints and enquiries; These details shall be displayed on a sign near the entrance to the Site, in a position that is clearly visible to the public, and which clearly indicates the purpose of the sign. The information is also to be provided on the Proponent s website. Compliant The required signs with each listed component were viewed adjacent to the main gate at the Kooragang Coal Terminal. The sign was clearly visible at the time of the audit. The PWCS 24hr Community Enquiry telephone line was checked and found to be functional. The PWCS Website was visited each of the required components was confirmed as available and up to date. PWCS have in place a Community Enquiries Procedure detailed by EWI- 05 Community Enquires Rev The Proponent shall record details of all complaints and enquiries received through the means listed under Condition 6.2 of this approval in an up-to-date Complaints and Enquiries Register. The Register shall record, but not be limited to: a) the date and time, where relevant, of the complaint and enquiry. b) the means by which the complaint and enquiry was made (telephone, mail or ). c) any personal details of the complainant and/or enquirer that were provided, or if no details were provided, a note to that effect. d) the nature of the complaint and enquiry. e) record of operational and meteorological condition contributing to complaint. f) any action(s) taken by the Proponent in relation to the complaint and enquiry, including any follow-up contact with the complainant and/or enquirer. g) if no action was taken by the Proponent in relation to the Compliant The Register of Community Enquiries is kept in the PWCS Information Management System. It was noted that during the audit period (August 2014 to July 2015), there were two entries which were logged at KCT. Of these one related to odour associated with port activities and one related to noise. Both complaints were responded to by PWCS staff. The odour complaint was determined not to be as a result of coal loading activities and the noise complaint requested further information in relation to type of noise, but was not detailed. Both are considered to be closed. Scrutiny of a print out of the Community Enquiry Database confirmed that components a), b) c), d), f) and g) listed in the consent condition were addressed. A copy of the community enquiry register is listed in Appendix C, however personnel details of the complaint have been omitted for privacy reasons /01/01 31

44 Conditions complaint and enquiry, the reason(s) why no action was taken. The Complaints and Enquiries Register shall be made available for inspection by the D-G. Provision of Electronic Information The Proponent shall establish and maintain a new website, or dedicated pages within its existing website for the provision of electronic information associated with the project. The Proponent shall publish and maintain up-to-date information on this website or dedicated pages including, but not limited to: a) a copy of the documents referred to under condition 1.1 of this approval, and any documentation supporting modifications to this approval that may be granted from time to time; b) a copy of this approval and each relevant environmental approval, licence or permit required and obtained in relation to the project; c) a copy of each strategy, plan and program required under this approval; and d) the outcomes of compliance tracking in accordance with condition 5.1 of this approval 7. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Environmental Representative 2015 Compliance Status Compliant 2015 Recommendations / observations Relevant data associated with this Condition are available on the PWCS website and can be easily located through the environment tab on the site Prior to the commencement of the construction project, or otherwise agreed by the D-G, the Proponent shall nominate a suitably qualified and experienced Environmental Representative(s) for the approval of the D-G. The Proponent shall employ the Environmental Representative(s) on a full time basis, or as otherwise agreed by the D-G, during the construction and operation of the project. The Environmental Representative shall be: a) the principal contact point in relation to the environmental performance of the project; b) responsible for all management plans and monitoring programs required under this approval; c) responsible for considering and advising on matters specified in the conditions of this approval, and all other licences and approvals Compliant A request was made by DPE in relation to the identification of a new Environmental Representative (ER) while Ms Simic was on extended leave or for PWCS to look at the re-negotiation of the condition to remove the word Operation from Condition 7.1 of this approval. Evidence was noted that Ms Simic had returned to work and as such the requirement for a replacement ER was not considered necessary and was communicated to DPE within a letter on the 27 th January /01/01 32

45 Conditions related to the environmental performance and impacts of the project; d) responsible for receiving and responding to complaints and enquiries in accordance with condition 6.2 and 6.3 of this approval; and e) given the authority and independence to require reasonable steps be taken to avoid or minimise unintended or adverse environmental impacts, and failing the effectiveness of such steps, to direct that relevant actions be ceased immediately should an adverse impact on the environment be likely to occur. Operational Environmental Management Plan Prior to the Commencement of Operations, the Proponent shall prepare and submit for approval of the D-G an Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) to detail an environmental management framework, practices and procedures to be followed during the operation of the project. The Plan shall be consistent with the Department s Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plans (DIPNR 2004), and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) a description of all activities to be undertaken on the Site during operation including an indication of stages of operation, where relevant; b) statutory and other obligations that the Proponent is required to fulfil during operation including all approvals, consultations and agreements required from authorities and other stakeholders, and key legislation and policies; c) details of how the environmental performance of the operations will be monitored, and what actions will be taken to address identified adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the following environmental performance issues shall be addressed in the Plan: a) i) measures to monitor and manage dust emissions; b) ii) measures to monitor and minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to lands and/ or waters during operation; c) iii) measures to monitor and control noise emissions during operation; d) a description of the roles and responsibilities for all relevant employees involved in the operation of the project; e) the additional plans/protocol listed under condition 7.5 of this approval; and f) complaints and enquiries handling procedures during operation Compliance Status Compliant 2015 Recommendations / observations The Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) was prepared and submitted to DPE prior to commencement of operations. A review of the document confirmed that each of the components required by this condition was found to be included. OEMP Mod_1 viewed (prepared by PWCS, dated 05/12/11). Submission to DP&I (copy of cover note viewed, dated 06/12/11); Submission to DP&I response with request for amendments (copy of cover note viewed, dated 02/02/12); Submission to DP&I (copy of cover note viewed, dated 16/03/12); Viewed copy of letter from DP&I to PWCS (dated 30/05/12) acknowledging receipt and confirming satisfaction with content. OEMP MOD_1 Rev 2, (dated 04/05/12) viewed. This is available on the PWCS website. An update to this management plan has been made but the plan has not been included on the website by PWCS as it is understood that the plan on the website is approved by DPE. Clarification has been sought in relation to management plans and dated 26 Sept 2014 that only approval for material changes to the plans require additional approval. As per Condition 6.1 there is an opportunity for improvement in relation to the most recent management plans being placed on the website /01/01 33

46 Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations The Operational Environmental Management Plan shall be made available for inspection by the public upon request following its approval by the D-G As part of the Operational Environmental Management Plan for the project, required under Condition 7.4 of this approval, the Proponent shall prepare and implement the following: a) a Dust Management Plan to outline measures to minimise and manage any impacts from the operation of the project on local air quality. The Plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) identification of all major sources of dust emissions that may occur as result of the operation of the project; ii) description of the procedures to manage the dust emissions from the sources identified; iii) identification of the locations where monitoring of dust emissions is to be undertaken; iv) procedures for monitoring dust emissions from the project, in accordance with the requirements of this approval and the Environment Protection Licence for the project; v) protocols for regular maintenance of plant and equipment, to minimise the potential for fugitive dust emissions; and vi) description of procedures to be undertaken if any non-compliance is detected. Compliant The Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) was prepared for implementation prior to the commencement of operations and each of the components required by this condition was found to be included (viewed OEMP Revision 2, dated February 2015). Viewed copy of cover note from PWCS to OEH (dated 06/06/12) accompanying submission of Operations Dust Management Plan for their approval. Viewed copy of response from EPA to PWCS (dated 19/06/12) acknowledging receipt of OWMP but declining any review comments. b) a Noise Management Plan to outline monitoring, management procedures and measures to minimise total operational noise emissions from the project. The Plan shall also include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) identification of all relevant receivers and the applicable criteria at those receivers commensurate with the noise limits specified under this approval; ii) identification of activities that will be carried out in relation to the project and the associated noise sources; iii) assessment of project noise impacts at the relevant receivers against the noise limits specified under this approval; iv) details of all management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control individual and overall noise emissions from the Site during the project; Viewed OEMP Air Quality Management Plan Rev 2 Feb 15, in which each of the listed components was found to be present; Viewed OEMP Noise Management Plan Rev 2 April 15, in which each of the listed components was found to be present; Viewed OEMP - Water Management Plan, in which each of the listed components was found to be present; Viewed OEMP Spontaneous Combustion Management Protocol Rev 2 April 2015, in which each of the listed components was found to be present; As per Condition 7.4 these plans have been updated but the plans listed above are still retained and active as they are the approved plan /01/01 34

47 Conditions v) details regarding the procurement process to guarantee that equipment levels meet the noise levels as provided in the documents listed in condition 1.1; vi) development of reactive and pro-active strategies for dealing promptly with any noise complaints and enquiries; vii) noise monitoring and reporting procedures; and viii) regular internal audits of compliance of all plant and equipment with acceptable design noise Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations c) a Water Management Plan to outline the water management system for the Site. The Plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) predicted Site water balance including the water supply system; ii) details regarding water management structures such as settling ponds and water tanks; iii) locations and design specifications for all water diversions from undisturbed runoff areas including channel design and stabilisation, sediment retention storages and other structures; iv) details on the internal drainage system including bunding, drainage channels, dewatering sumps and any pipelines; v) procedures for the management of groundwater encountered on Site and any temporary dewatering facilities; and vi) procedures to be implemented to minimise potential surface water impacts. d) a Spontaneous Combustion Management Protocol to outline measures to minimise and manage the spontaneous combustion of the coal stockpiles. The Protocol shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) coal stockpile management measures; ii) monitoring of potential causes of spontaneous combustion events; and iii) corrective action in the event of spontaneous combustion /01/01 35

48 8. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING Incident Reporting Conditions 2015 Compliance Status 2015 Recommendations / observations The Proponent shall notify the D-G of any incident with actual or potential significant off-site impacts on people or the biophysical environment as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the incident. The Proponent shall provide written details of the incident to the D-G within seven days of the date on which the incident occurred. Compliant PWCS reported that no incidents with the potential to cause actual or potential significant off-site impacts have taken place during the audit period The Proponent shall maintain a register of accidents, incidents and potential incidents with actual or potential significant off-site impacts on people or the biophysical environment. The register shall be made available for inspection at any time by the independent qualified person or team conducting the Environmental Audit and/or the D-G Compliant The Register of Accidents, Incidents and Potential Incidents is maintained in electronic format (the PWCS in-house SiteSafe system). An example of a report of an environmental incident was viewed, to confirm the content and layout The register contained a number of minor incidents and their actions. PWCS stated that the register is available for inspection by enquiring with any admin officer. To date, the Director-General has not requested viewing this The Proponent shall meet the requirements of the D-G to address the cause or impact of any incident, as it relates to this consent, reported in accordance with Condition 8.1 of this consent, within such period as the D-G may agree. Compliant PWCS stated that no requests of this nature have been made /01/01 36

49 /01/01 37

50

51 5 OTHER LICENCES A number of other Licences and Certificates are relevant to the project and have been included in this audit. These are addressed in this section below. 5.1 Occupation Certificates The final Occupation Certificates for Project 145 was issued by Newcastle City Council (NCC) during the period relevant to this audit, they are attached in Appendix G. 5.2 Environment Protection Licence Environment Protection Licence No 1552 governing the site operations was issued by the NSW Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and was last updated on 10 February The current review date for this licence is 04/08/2015. The performance of PWCS site activities in respect of the licence conditions is summarised in Table Miscellaneous Licences, Consents and Lease Agreements PWCS has a licence to utilise property managed by the Regional Land Management Corporation (RLMC) on behalf of the Department of Commerce (State Property). RLMC have now been absorbed into the Hunter Development Corporation (HDC). PWCS s performance in respect of the approvals/certificates is summarised in Table 5.2. No other Licences or Permits were modified or are applicable during the audit period /01/01 39

52 Table 5-1 Compliance Audit Tables - Construction Certificates, Occupation Certificates & Approvals Summary List No. Authority Details Approval No. Compliance Comments 1 Newcastle City Council Occupation Certificate for Dump Station 4 Compliant and Closed Compliant Noted in Folder DA Condition 41 Table 5-2 Compliance Audit Tables - Miscellaneous Licences No. Authority Details Licence / Approval No. Compliance Comments Ongoing 1 Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), now OEH. Environment Protection Licence issued under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997) Compliant 2 Department SEWPAC Sea Dumping Permit for the dredging and disposal of estuarine materials for the Stage 3 works. SD2008/1042 Closed The licence has expired. Table 5-3 Compliance Audit Tables Environment Protection Licence No 1552 Relevant Conditions No. Condition 1 Administrative Conditions A1.1 - Scheduled Activities A2.1 Premises Monteath and Powys (26/9/13) rev. 6 map A3.1 - Information supplied to the EPA 2 Discharges to air and water P1.2 - Location of water monitoring points (9 water monitoring locations as per rev 6 map) 2015 Compliance Status Compliant Compliant 2015 Statement Scheduled activities undertaken at KCT are those listed in A1.1 On-site activities undertaken at KCT are within the bounds of the specified parcels of land in A2.1. Dust gauges and HVAS are located at each of the specified locations. Water monitoring is undertaken by an appointed contractor as required to meet the licence condition /01/01 40

53 No. Condition P1.3 Location of dust monitoring points (4 dust as per rev 6 map) 3 Limit Conditions L1.1 - Pollution of Waters L2 Waste L3 Potentially Offensive odour 4 Operating Conditions O1.1 - Activities must be carried out in a competent manner O2.1 - Maintenance of Plant and Equipment O3.1 O3.3 Dust Control general dust management and trucks must be covered O4.1 Emergency Response O Processes and Management: Bunds must: a) have walls and floors constructed of impervious materials; b) be of sufficient capacity to contain 110% of the volume of the tank (or 110% volume of the largest tank where a group of tanks are installed); c) have floors graded to a collection sump; and d) not have a drain valve incorporated in the bund structure, or be constructed and operated in a manner that achieves 2015 Compliance Status Compliant Compliant 2015 Statement Dust gauges measured monthly and HVAS monitored every 6 days as per Aus Standards. Monitoring requirements undertaken by PWCS for dust and air exceed requirements established under this Licence. Water monitoring undertaken as required While the NSW EPA has established criteria for monitoring the limits for discharge are set under legislation POEO Act 1997 S120 prohibits pollution of waters 1) A person who pollutes any waters is guilty of an offence 2) In this section: pollute waters includes causes or permit any waters to be polluted POEO Act 1997 S.129 Emission of odours from premises licensed for scheduled activities (1) The occupier of any premises at which scheduled activities are carried on under the authority conferred by a licence must not cause or permit the emission of any offensive odour from the premises to which the licence applies. Each condition covered by one or more approval conditions Personnel on site are appropriately trained and skilled for their required activities. Copies of training records, toolboxes and training programs for environmental management were sighted; Plant and equipment is operated by trained and appropriately skilled operators Tools and equipment are assessed on their suitability and integrity prior to works and are maintained through the sites maintenance program (MAXIMO) records of maintenance were sighted during the site audit; The Air and Dust Operational Environmental Management Plan has been approved by DPE and was sent to EPA for comment. The plan outlines requirements for dust management and monitoring The hydrocarbon store and the refuelling facility were inspected and it was noted that they were bunded. The design and capacity of the bunding would appear to be sufficient although no calculations were undertaken to ensure that they met the requirements of the Licence. While the site predominantly drains to an internal water management system, the placement of waste oil / or oil drums outside of dedicated bunding (refer to Appendix E) poses a potential cost and issue for clean up and increases the potential for offsite contamination. Waste is handled, disposed and treated by licensed contractor (JR Richards /01/01 41

54 No. Condition the same environmental outcome. O Waste Management: Waste classification and separation requirements O7.1 Other operating conditions (a) Ensure that vehicles or containers prior to leaving the premises are clean and sealed in a manner that will not cause materials or wastes used in conducting the activities at the premises to be tracked, thrown from, blown, fall, or cast from any vehicle or container onto a public road. (b) The licensee must have in place and implement procedures to ensure that vehicles and containers exiting the premises are in a condition to ensure that materials are not tracked, thrown, blown, fall or cast onto a public road 5 Monitoring and Recording Conditions M1.1 - M1.3 - Monitoring records (4 years) (include date time, point and sampler) M2.1 - M2.4 - Requirement to monitor concentration of pollutants discharged Water: oil and grease (mg/l), ph, TSS (mg/l) Air (2 DPs, 1 HVAS and 1 special monitoring AS M3.1 M3.2: Testing methods concentration limits M4.1 - M4.4 - Recording of pollution complaints (see 4.2 in relation to records) M5.1 - M5.4 - Telephone complaints line 6 Reporting Conditions R1.1 - R1.7 - Annual return documents R2.1 - R2.2 - Notification of environmental harm R3.1 - R3.4 - Written report G General Conditions G1.1 - G1.3 - Copy of Licence 2015 Compliance Status Compliant Compliant Compliant 2015 Statement Report sighted during site audit); Internal roads are mostly sealed although as discussed in Section 4.3, Condition 2.12 there are areas of roadway that may require sealing. Opportunity for Improvement: The refuelling area for the site should be assessed to determine if it meets AS1940 requirements and has sufficient bunding and mitigation measures for the activities conducted. A review of AS1940 was not conducted, and was not required in accordance with the scope of works. Records relating to these conditions are kept in the Environmental Monitoring Database. In addition the latest environmental monitoring results can be found on the PWCS website. The methodologies associated with monitoring are covered in the relevant consultancy report for air/dust, water and noise. PWCS has established a 24hr Community Hotline as well as recorded alternative methods for community complaints which are recorded and where available as part of this audit PWCS stated that the Annual Return (with relevant supporting information community enquiries, meteorological data, monitoring results) was submitted recently to EPA Evidence of submission of the 2013/2014 Annual Return was sighted The electronic copy of the licence was available on request /01/01 42

55 /01/01 43

56

57 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The audit comprised a site inspection visit on 28 July 2015, interviews with PWCS staff and a review of documentary evidence supporting the compliance status of each condition of approval. In general, from the evidence observed during the audit, it was considered that PWCS environmental staff were well informed of issues surrounding the environmental performance of the KCT facility and the specific requirements of the conditions attached to both approvals covered by this audit. There was reportedly no feedback from DPE on the content of the 2014 combined compliance audit. 6.1 Development Application DA No 35/96 Development Application No. 35/96 for the Stage 3 Expansion operations lists forty three Conditions of Consent. URS have undertaken an independent audit of PWCS activities associated with this project and it is URS considered opinion that PWCS complies with these Conditions of Consent for the audit period. It is noted that of the 43 Conditions of DA 35/96, 33 were not assessed as they were deemed to be closed during the independent audit. One condition was considered to be closed as part of this audit. Six conditions were considered to remain open and applicable although their relevance with completion of the Stage 3 works was considered limited. Three of these conditions were dependent on the six open conditions. 6.2 Approval 06_0189 Schedule 2 of Project Approval 06_0189 for the KCT 120 Mtpa upgrade of PWCS operations (modified in 2012 as PA 06_0189 MOD 3) lists 55 Conditions. URS have conducted an environmental compliance audit of the PWCS operations associated with the requirements of these Approval Conditions. Construction works were completed prior to the audit period and the operational phase of the upgraded facility is in effect. URS have confirmed by undertaking this compliance audit that the fifty five Conditions currently applicable to the activities are being addressed by PWCS in a satisfactory manner. No non compliances were identified during the audit period. One condition has yet to be triggered and 11 Conditions are considered closed as the construction works were completed prior to the audit period. No non-compliances were identified during the audit period for EPL URS noted that of the 55 Conditions of Consent, five were not assessed as they were closed within the independent audit and that an additional four Conditions were considered to be closed as part of this audit. These Conditions relate to construction activities that have been completed and commissioning programs that have been completed. 6.3 Recommendations Environmental issues on site appear to be well managed and there were indicators associated with review and continual improvement in the Environmental Team s approach to KCT environmental performance /01/01 45

58 It is considered that the principal challenges facing the coal handling facility at KCT will continue to revolve around potential impacts on nearby residential areas and adjacent sensitive ecological receptors, particularly with regard to air quality, noise emissions and water quality issues. The following opportunities for improvement associated with site management are noted: Opportunity for Improvement: Documentation associated with the condition contained within PWCS Compliance Register includes: - 5 Pt Plan June Update completed - HV Rail Transport Systen join Efficiency Study Final Report - HV Coal Export Coal Movement System Framework Study - Coal Handling Services Agreement - Operating Protocols Supporting conditions for provisions of coal handling services - Operating Agreement between PWCS and Freight Rail These documents were submitted to regulators and signed in 1997 but there is no evidence of review or update of these plans. PWCS should determine whether these documents are relevant and if they require a review and update. In April 2015 according to the Water Management (06-39) Monthly Report - APRIL 2015 Coalbridge Operations Pty Ltd (Coalbridge 04/15) the site received heavy rain which caused a number of issues on site in relation to water management. The report (Coalbridge 04/15) verified that the water discharged from site generally met criteria for a rainfall event; however, it is recommended that the PWCS undertake an investigation to understand the root cause of these issues and how the system can be improved to prevent reoccurrence. Issues reportedly included: - malfunctioning alarms - sensor errors - automated system failures; and - manned system process failures, such as pump relocations and notification processes. As per DPE dated 26 September 2014 management plans can be updated without approval if there is no material change. It is therefore an opportunity that any updated plans be placed on the website so as to inform the community of site processes and to eliminate any potential confusion in relation to community engagement. The refuel area for the site should be assessed to determine if it meets AS The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids (AS1940) requirements and has sufficient bunding and mitigation measures for a refuelling site. This audit did not include, and was not required, to include an assessment of AS1940 requirements /01/01 46

59 Observation: While the management system appears to be predominantly discoverable electronically it was noted that there were a number of tracking registers for approvals which could lead to confusion. It is understood that the PWCS is in the process of converting their management processes to an online database system (MAXIMO HSE) at which point there is an opportunity to archive many of these registers and reportedly the Maximo system will manage the register. The previous air quality environmental monitoring procedure (Environmental Operating Procedure EOP01 Air Quality) was sent to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for comment in June 2012 If the EPA provide comment and material changes between EOP01 and StepSafe are identified then it is recommended the revised procedure should be resubmitted to the EPA for comment /01/01 47

60

61 APPENDIX A CONSENT CONDITIONS (DA NO 35/96) /01/01

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142 APPENDIX B PROJECT APPROVAL (06_0189_MOD 3) /01/01

143

144 Project Approval Section 75J of lhe Environmental Planning and Assessmenf Act 1979 l, the Minister for Planning, approve the project referred to in Schedule 1, subject to the conditions in Schedule 2. These conditions are required to: o prev ñt, minimise, and/or offset adverse environmental impacts; set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance;. require regular monitoring and reporting; and. provide for the ongoing environmental management of the project. Frank Sartor MP Minister for Planning Sydney 13 April 2007 File No: 506/00306 MP 06 OI89 MOD I - APPROVED 31 MAY 2OIO MP 06_0189 MOD 2 - APPROVED 5 APRIL 2OI2 MP 06 OI89 MOD 3 - APPROVED 26 NOVEMBER2Ol2 SCHEDULE 1 Application No: Proponent: Approval Authority: Land: Project: NSW Government Department of Planning Port Waratah Coal Services Limited Minister for Planning Lot20 DP262325; LotS DP ; Lots 2and3DP ; Lots 1,2and 3 DP ; Lots 1,2,3,6 & 7 DP ; Lots 1 1, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22 DP ; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7 & 8 DP ; Lots I, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 & I 5 DP ; Lots 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41 DP ; Lots 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53 & 55 DP ; Lot 1 DP ; Lot 11 DP841542; Lot 1 DP ; Lot 1 DP ; Lots 201, 202,203,204,205,206,207,208 & 209 DP ; Lot 210 DP ; Lot 520 DP ; Lots 101,102,103, 104, 105, 106, '108, 110, 111, 112, DP ; Lot 132 DP ; Lot 2 DP ; Lots 13 & 1 4 DP ; Lot 362 DP and Lot 6 DP , Lot 18 DP I and Lot 16 DP , Lots 1& 5 in DP andlot 16 in DP Development to increase the throughput of the existing Kooragang Coal Terminal to 120 million tonnes per annum. This includes upgrades and/ or improvements to: the three receival and four stacking streams; the coal reclaim system and the shiploading system. lt also includes: installing new low 1

145 noise drives of higher power and increased speed; increasing the coal profile on the belt; changing to higher capacity chutes and introducing soft flow design for more efficient movement of coal; and upgrade works to the power supply and control systems. The proposal is declared a Major Project under section 758(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, because it is a development of a kind that is described in clause 22 of Schedule 1 to Sfafe Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 20A5. NSW Government Department of Planning 2

146 KEY TO CONDITIONS 1. ADMINISTRATIVECONDITIONS Limits of Approval Statutory Requirements 2. SPECIFICENVIRONMENTALCONDITIONS Air Quality lmpacts Noise lmpacts Soil and Water Quality lmpacts Waste Generation and Management Visual lmpacts Conveyor Bridge Construction Parking Property 3. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDITING Ambient Dust Monitoring Noise Auditing 4. COORDINATION OF PORT WORKS AND COAL EXPORT ACTIVITIES Coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol Coordination of Cumulative Dust Studies 5. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND TRACKING Compliance Tracking Program 6. COMMUNITY INFORMATION, CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT Complaints and Enquiries Procedure Provision of Electronic lnformation 7. ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT Environmental Representative Construction Environmental Management Plan Operation Environmental Management Plan 8. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING lncident Reporting o o 7 I o 9 I 10 l NSW Government Department of Planning 3

147 SCHEDULE 2 Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Commencement of Commencement of physical upgrades and/or improvements Construction bevond those approved as part of the Stage 3 expansion. Commencement of Operations that achieve a throughput capacity exceeding 77 Operations million tonnes per annum. Conditions of Approval The Minister's conditions of approval for the proiect. Council Newcastle City Council Day the period from 7am to 6pm on Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 6pm on Sundays and Public Holidays Department, the Department of Planning Director-General, the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or delegate). Director-General's Approval A written approval from the Director-General (or delegate) DECCW (deleted in Mod 2) EPA EPL Evening Feasible and reasonable Minister, the Mtpa NCIG Night NOW Proponent Publicly Available RMS RTA (deleted in Mod 2) Sensitive Receiver Site Where the Director-General's Approval is required under a condition the Director-General will endeavour to provide a response within one month of receiving an approval request. The Director-General may ask for additional information if the approval request is considered incomplete. When further information is requested the time taken for the Proponent to respond in writing will be added to the one month period. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water Environment Protection Authority as part of the Office of Environment and Heritage Environment Protection Licence issued under lhe Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 the period from 6pm to 1Opm on any day as defined in the New South Wales lndustrialnorse Policy (EPA.2000) Minister for Planninq Million tonnes per annum Newcastle Coal lnfrastructure Group the period from 1Opm to 7am on Monday to Saturday, and 1Opm to 8am on Sundays and Public Holidays NSW Office of Water Port Waratah Coal Services Limited, or any party acting under authorisation from and on behalf of Port Waratah Coal Services. Available for inspection by a member of the general public (for example available on an internet Site or at a display centre). NSW Roads and Maritime Services NSW Roads and Traffic Authority Residence, education institution (e.9. school, TAFE college), health care facility (e.9. nursing home, hospital) or religious facility (e.g, church). Land to which this approval applies Stage 4 Project Development to provide for increased sprint capacity to the operations of the Kooragang Coal Terminal. This involves NSW Government Department of Planning 4

148 the construction and operation of a fourth dump station, a fourth ship loader, and associated coal handling and transport infrastructure. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS Terms of Project Approval 1.1 The Proponent shall carry out the project generally in accordance with the a) Major Project Application 06_0189; b) Environmenfal Assessment - Kooragang Coal Terminal - Proposed lncrease to Throughput Capacity, dated November 2006, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; c) Kooragang Coal Terminal - Proposed lncrease to Throughput Capacity - Response fo Submrsslons Part A, dated January 2007, and Kooragang Coal Terminal - Proposed lncrease to Throughput Capacity - Response to Submissr'ons Part B, dated January 2007, both prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; d) Kooragang Coal Terminal Stage 4 Project Fourth Dump Sfafion & Fourth Shiploader, dated November 2009, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; e) Kooragang Coal Terminal Stage 4 Project Fourth Dump Sfafion & Fourth Shiploader - Response to Suömissions, dated February 2010, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; Ð Kooragang Coal Terminal Propose.d Fourth Rail Loop Alignment, dated June 2011, and prepared by Umwelt Environmental Consultants; and g) Letter authored by PWCS and titled Secfion 75W Modification to Kooragang Coal Terminal 120 Mtpa Project (DA ) - Update to Schedule of Lands, dated 2 July 2012; and letter authored by Umwelt Environmental Consultants and tilled Kooragang CoalTerminal- DA 06_189 MOD 3, dated 31 October 2012; and h) the conditions of this approval. 1.2 ln the event of an inconsistency between: a) the conditions of this approval and any document listed from condition 1.1a) to l.g) inclusive, the conditions of this approval shall prevail of the extent inconsistency; and b) Any document listed from condition 1.1a) to 1.1g) inclusive, and any other document listed from condition 1.1a) to 1.19) inclusive, the most recent document shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. 1.3 The Proponent shall comply with any reasonable requirement(s) of the Director-General arising from the Department's assessment of: a) any reports, plans or correspondence that are submitted in accordance with this approval; and b) the implementation of any actions or measures contained in these reports, plans or correspondence. Limits of Approval 1.4 This approval shall lapse five years after the date on which it is granted, unless the works the subject of this approval are physically and substantially commenced on or before that time. 1.5 The maximum export capacity from the upgraded coal terminal shall be limited to 120 million tonnes of coal per annum. Statutory Requirements 1.6 The Proponent shall ensure that all licences, permits and approvals are obtained and kept up-to-date as required throughout the life of the development. No condition of this approval removes the obligation for the Proponent to obtain, renew or comply with such licences, permits or approvals. The Proponent shall ensure that a copy of this approval and all ielevant environmental approvals are available on the Site at all times during the project. NSW Government Department of Planning 5

149 1.7 The Proponent shall ensure that all practicable measures shall be taken to prevent and minimise harm to the environment as a result of the construction, operation, and where relevant, decommissioning of the development. 1.8 The Proponent shall ensure that all plant and equipment installed at the premises or used in conjunction with the project must be: a) maintained in a proper and efficient condition; and b) operated in a proper and efficient manner. 2. SPEGIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Air Quality lmpacts Odour 2.1 The Proponent shall not permit any offensive odour, as defined under section 129 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, to be emitted beyond the boundary of the Site. Dust Emissíons 2.2 The Proponent shall design, construct, commission, operate and maintain the project in a manner that minimises or prevents the emission of dust from the Site including wind blown and traffic generated dust. 2.3 The Proponent shall take all practicable measures to ensure that all vehicles entering or leaving the Site, carrying a load that may generate dust, are covered at all times, except during loading and unloading. Any such vehicles shall be covered or enclosed in a manner that will prevent emissions of dust from the vehicle at all times, to the extent practicable. 2.4 All activities on the Site shall be undertaken with the objective of preventing visible emissions of dust beyond the boundary of the Site. Should such visible dust emissions occur at any time, the Proponent shall identify and implement all practicable dust mitigation measures, including cessation of relevant works, as appropriate. 2.5 The Proponent shall control dust emissions on all internal roads, trafficable areas and manoeuvring areas to minimise the potential for dust generation by sealing, or othenruise treating surfaces in a manner acceptable to the Director-General. Noise lmpacts 2.6 The Proponent shall minimise noise emissions from plant and equipment operated on the Site in relation to the pro.lect according to the principles outlined in the NSW Government's I ndustrial Norse Policy. Construction Norse 2.7 The Proponent shall only undertake construction activities associated with the project that would generate an audible noise at any residential premises between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm, seven days a week. Audible noise is defined as "noise that can be heard at the receiver". This condition does not apply in the event of a direction from police'or other relevant authority for safety or emergency reasons. Note: 'safety or emergency reasons'refers to emergency works which may need to be undertaken to avoid loss of life, property loss and/or to prevent environmental harm. Operation /Vorse 2.8 The Proponent shall design, construct, operate and maintain the project to ensure that the noise contributions from the expanded coal terminal do not exceed the maximum allowable noise contributions specified in Table 1 below, at those locations and during those periods indicated. The maximum allowable noise contributions apply under: a) meteorological conditions of: wind speeds up to 3 ms-1 at 10 metres above ground level; or NSW Government Department of Planning 6

150 b) temperature inversion conditions up to 3oC per 100 metres and wind speeds up to 2ms-1 at 10 metres above tl e ground. Table I - Maximum Allowable Noise Gontributions (db(a)) l-ocation Day, Evening, Night At all t mes Night '10:00pm to 7:00am Monday to Saturday 10 00pm to 8,00am on Sundays and Publ c Holidays LAeq{15 minute) LAeq(nisht) LAI(1 m nute) Fern Bay North Fern Bay West Fern Bay East Stockton West Stockton East Mayfield West Mayfield Carrington For the purpose of assessment of noise contributions specified under cond tion 2.8 of this consent, noise from the project shall be: a) measured at the most affected point on or within the Site boundary at the most sensitive receiver to determine compliance with Lneq(rs minute hight noise limits; b) measured at one metre from the dwelling façade to determine compliance with L 111 minute IloiSê limits; and c) subject to the modification factors provided in Section 4 of the New South Wales lndustrialnorse Policy (EPA, 2000), where applicable. Notwithstanding, should direct measurement of noise from the development be impractical, the Proponent may employ an alternative noise assessment method deemed acceptable by the EPA (refer to Section 11 of the New South Wales lndustrial Norse Policy (EPA, 2000)). Details of such an alternative noise assessment method accepted by the EPA shall be submitted to the Director-General prior to the implementation of the assessment method The Proponent shall investigate all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, as defined in the New South Wales lndustrial Norse Policy (EPA, 2000), to reduce noise impacts from the upgraded coal terminal at Fern Bay and Stockton to achieve noise contributions of no greater than 43 db(a) (Lneq,(nigr,t)), and 45 db(a) (La"q,(rs minutes)) under adverse meteorological conditions specified under condition 2.8 of this approval. A report on investigations shall be submitted to EPA and the Director-General within 12 months of commencement of works the subject of this approval and annually thereafter, unless othenryise agreed by EPA and the Director-General, until levels specified above are achieved. A program for ongoing investigation and implementation of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures to reduce noise contributions at Fern Bay and Stockton shall be implemented. The program shall commence no later than six months following the EPA's agreement to a noise reduction program, unless othenruise agreed by the EPA and the Director-General. Train /Volse Pertormance 2.11 The Proponent shall take all necessary actions to ensure that trains operated on the Site meet the noise performance criteria established under condition 2.8. Soil and Water Quality lmpacts 2.12 Except as may be expressly provided under the provisions of an Environment Protection Licence for the project, the Proponent shall comply with section 12Q of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 which prohibits the pollution of waters. NSW Government Department of Planning 7

151 2.13 The Proponent shall not permit the discharge of any water from the Site to the Hunter River unless expressly provided under the provisions of an Environment Protection Licence, or when a storm event exceeds a 1 in 100 year ARI event or after prolonged wet weather 'equivalent' to this event. 2.13A The construction of the rail loop augmentation, forming part of the Stage 4 Project, as modified in accordance with condition l.1f), shall be integrated with existing surface water management measures to ensure compliance with condition 2.12, or the requirement of any applicable Environment Protection Licence. Construction Soil and Water Management 2.14 The Proponent shall take all reasonable measures to prevent soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and pollutants from the Site during construction of the project. 2.14A The Proponent shall ensure that groundwater interactions that may occur from construction of the fourth dump station and associated conveyor infrastructure are minimised. Water quality monitoring shall be conducted during these works and where the monitoring indicates potential impact on the groundwater system, treatment options for dewatering shall be investigated and implemented in consultation with the NOW and in accordance with any relevant approvalfrom NOW The Proponent shall install stormwater drains, stormwater ponds, settlement ponds and/or storage ponds and other erosion, sediment and pollution controls as may be appropriate to manage stormwater on the Site. The Proponent shall maintain all erosion, sediment and pollution control infrastructure at or above design capacity for the duration of construction of the project and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment. Operation Soil and Water Management 2.16 The Proponent shall maximise the capture and re-use of stormwater on-site for beneficial purposes such as dust control on coal stockpiles ln the event that stormwater runoff collection cannot meet the water demand of the Site, treated wastewater, if available from the relevant water authority, shall be used preferentially over potable water for the purposes of dust control, unless othenruise agreed by the Director- General. Waste Generation and Management 2.18 All waste materials removed from the Site shall only be directed to a waste management facility lawfully permitted to accept the materials Except as expressly permitted in an Environment Protection Licence applicable to the project, waste shall not be received at the Site for storage, treatment, processing, reprocessing or disposal on the Site. Visual lmpacts 2.20 ïhe Proponent shall ensure that all new external lighting associated with the project is mounted, screened, and directed in such a manner so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding land and water uses..the lighting shall be the minimum level of illumination necessary, and be in general accordancewith the latestversion of AS Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Conveyor Bridge 2.21 The Stage 4 Project conveyor bridge and its approaches over Teal Street shall be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum of 6.5m vertical height clearance from the top of the Teal Street pavement to the underside of the bridge structure. Maintenance activities NSW Government Department of Planning I

152 required for the bridge structure shall be carried out from within/on the structure and impacts of such activities minimised within the road reserve. The Proponent shall provide details of the maintenance policy for the proposed conveyor to the RMS and obtain its agreement regarding the on-going maintenance of the bridge structure. Construction Parking 2.22 Parking for all construction related vehicles associated with Stage 4, as modified in accordance with condition 1.1f), must be provided within the Kooragang Coal Terminal site or on land subject to an agreement between PWCS and the landholder for the purpose. Property 2.23 The Proponent shall design and construct the project in a manner that mitigates to the extent that is reasonably practicable, direct physical impacts to adjoining property, property infrastructure and its operation, including conveyors, adjoining buildings and the like. The Proponent shall consult with directly affected property owner(s) on this matter and ensure that any damage or operational impacts caused by the project is rectified at the Proponent's expense to a standard comparable to that in existence prior to the damage. Windmill Road Crossing 2.24 A fully controlled level crossing across Windmill Road shall be provided for the outbound departure track. The crossing shall be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with relevant standards, in consultation with ARTC and Pacific National, and shall take into account the operational requirements of these users. PWCS North Road 2.25 Yehicular access to and from North Road shall be maintained during construction and operation of Stage 4, as modified in accordance with condition 1.1f). The relocated road shall be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with relevant standards, in consultation with affected users, and shall take into account the users' operational requirements. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDITING Ambient Dust Monitoring 3.1 Prior to the Commencement of Operations, the Proponent shall develop and submit for the approval of the Director-General and the EPA, an Ambient Dust Monitoring Program, to outline how the ambient dust impacts of the project will be monitored. The Program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) identification of an integrated air quality monitoring network, developed in consultation with the owner/ operator of the NCIG Coal Export Terminal; b) locations, frequencies and methods for monitoring total suspended particles, PMls and deposited particulate matter; c) provision for the use of at least four hi-volume air samplers (HVAS), four dust depositional gauges and a meteorological station capable of monitoring wind direction and speed in accordance with AM-1 Guide to Siting of Sampling Units (AS ); AM-2 Guide for Horizontal Measurement of Wind for Air Quality Applications (AS ); and AM-4 On-Site Meteorological Monitoring Program Guidance for Regulatory Modelling Applications; d) investigation of the use of Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance Samplers (TEOMS) as part of the integrated air quality monitoring network. Should the Proponent consider TEOMS not to be required, the Proponent may seek approval from both the Director-General and the EPA to exclude this requirement. ln seeking such an exclusion, the Proponent's reasons for the exclusion shall be provided and be fully justified; e) provided that the use of TEOMS is proven to be justified (as outlined in d) above), the Proponent shall utilise real-time monitoring data to inform environmental management decisions associated with the project; f) a framework for identifying actual and potential dust impacts, and for applying proactive and reactive mitigation and management measures to address those impacts; g) provision for independent review and auditing of the Program; and NSW Government Department of Planning I

153 h) mechanisms for updating the Program as may be required from time to time. 3.2 Following one full year of data collection in accordance with an approved Ambient Dust Monitoring Program (refer to condition 3.1), the Proponent shall undertake a model validation study to review TSP, PMls and dust deposition levels to assess compliance with the dust impact predictions made in the documents referred to under condition 1.1 and with applicable ambient air quality goals. The model validation study shall be undertaken in accordance with Approved Methods and Guidance for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (EPA, 2001), and any specific requirements of the EPA. 3,3 Within 28 days of conducting the dust validation study referred to under condition 3.2 of this approval, the Proponent shall provide the Director-General and the EPA with a copy of the report. lf the dust validation study identifies significant deviance from the predictions made in the documents referred to under condition 1.1 or any exceedance with ambient air quality goals, the Proponent shall detail what additional measures would be implemented to further mitigate dust impacts. The Proponent shall clearly indicate who would implement these measures, when these measures would be implemented, and how the effectiveness of these measures would be assessed and reported to the Director-General. Noise Auditing 3"4 Within 90 days of the Commencement of Operations, and following the commissioning of the Stage 4 Project, as modified in accordance with condition 1.1f), or as otherwise agreed by the Director-General, and during a period in which the project is operating under normal operating conditions, the Proponent shall undertake a program to confirm the noise performance of the project. The noise program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) noise monitoring, consistent with the guidelines provided in the New South Wales lndustrial Norse Policy (EPA, 2000), to assess compliance with condition 2.8 of this consent. b) methodologies, locations and frequencies for noise monitoring; c) identification of monitoring sites at which pre- and post-project noise levels can be ascertained; d) details of any complaints and enquiries received in relation to noise generated by the project within the first g0 days of operation; e) an assessment of night-time use of audible alarm systems; f) a statement of whether the Site is in compliance with noise limits in condition 2.8; and g) any additional noise mitigation measures and timetables for implementation. 3.5 Within 28 days of conducting the noise monitoring referred to under condition 3.4 of this approval, or as othenruise agreed by the Director-General, the Proponent shall provide the Director-General and the EPA with a copy of the report. lf the noise monitoring report identifies any non-compliance with the noise limits imposed under this approval (refer condition 2.8), the Proponent shall detail what additional measures would be implemented to ensure compliance, clearly indicating who would implement these measures, when these measures would be implemented, and how the effectiveness of these measures would be measured and reported to the Director-General. 4. COORDINATION OF PORT WORKS AND COAL EXPORT ACTIVITIES Coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol 4.1 Prior to the commencement of construction, or as othenruise agreed by the Director-General, the Proponent shall develop, in consultation with owner/ operator of the NCIG Coal Export Terminal, a Coordinated Environmental Monitoring and Management Protocol to provide a framework for the coordinated and cooperative monitoring and management of environmental impacts from the developments. The Protocol shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) procedures for access to, and provision of, monitoring data from each development, particularly in relation to dust and noise emissions; b) the respective remediation and redevelopment works; NSW Government Department of Planning 10

154 c) arrangements for coordinated and cooperative monitoring of ambient environmental impacts, including agreements relating to sharing of monitoring networks/ infrastructure, coordinated interpretation of monitoring results and coordination dissemination of monitoring results to relevant parties; d) measures to ensure a coordinated and cooperative approach to the management of common or cumulative environmental impacts from the developments; e) arrangements for communication.between the parties, including designated contact persons and contact details; f) notification procedures in the event of an incident at either development that may impact on the other development, or generate a significant common or cumulative impact; g) any agreement for participation in the development of any of the management plans or monitoring programs required under this approval; h) mechanism for review of the Protocol from time to time; and i) such other matters as the parties may agree. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Protocol to the Director-General and the EPA as soon as practicable after agreement on the terms of the Protocol. Goordination of Cumulative Dust Studies 4.2 The Proponent shall participate in any cumulative dust study that may be commissioned by the Department, in consultation with EPA. Any such study shall be focused on cumulative dust impacts from major port and industrial sources in the Lower Hunter Estuary on potentially affected residential and sensitive receptors, with specific reference to receptors in Fern Bay, Stockton, Mayfield and Carrington. The extent of the Proponent's involvement in such a study shall be agreed with and to the satisfaction of the Director-General, and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) provision of monitoring data associated with the environmental performance of the project; b) provision of management and auditing documentation associated with the project and relevant to the study; c) access to the project and relevant technical and environmental experts associated with the project; d) arrangements for any financial contributions to cover the reasonable expenses associated with the study; and e) such other matters as the Proponent and the Director-General may agree. 5. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND TRACKING Gompliance Tracking Program 5.1 The Proponent shall develop and implement a Compliance Tracking Program to track compliance with the requirements of this approval. The Program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) provisions for periodic review of the compliance status of the project against the requirements of this approval; b) provisions for periodic reporting of compliance status to the Director-General; c) a program for independent environmental auditing at least annually, or as othenruise agreed by the Director-General, in accordance with ISO 19011: Guidelines for Quality and/ or Environmental Management Sysfems Auditing; and d) mechanisms for rectifying any non-compliance identified during environmental auditing or review of compliance. 6. COMMUNITY INFORMATION, CONSULTATION AND INVOLVEMENT 6.1 Subject to commercial confidentiality, the Proponent shall make all documents required under this approval available for public inspection on request. Complaints and Enquiries Procedure NSW Government Department of Planning 11

155 6.2 Prior to the commencement of construction of the project, the Proponent shall ensure that the following are available for community complaints and enquiries for the life of the project (ineluding construction and operation): a) a telephone number on which complaints and enquiries about construction and operational activities at the Site may be registered; b) a postal address to which written complaints and enquiries'may be sent; and c) an address to which electronic complaints and enquiries may be transmitted. The telephone number, the postal address and the address shall be displayed on a sign near the entrance to the Site, in a position fhat is clearly visible to the public, and which clearly indicates the purposes of the sign. This information is also to be provided on the Proponent's website. 6.3 The Proponent shall record details of all complaints and enquiries received through the means listed under condition 6.2 of this.approval in an up-to-date Complaints and Enquiries Register. The Register shall record, but not necessarily be limited to: a) the date and time, where relevant, of the complaint and enquiry; b) the means by which the complaint and enquiry was made (telephone, mail or ); c) any personal details of the complainant and/or enquirer that were provided, or if no details were provided, a note to that effect; d) the nature of the complaint and enquiry; e) record of operational and meteorological condition contributing to complaint; f) any action(s) taken by the Proponent in relation to the complaint and enquiry, including any follow-up contact with the complainant and/or enquirer; and g) if no action was taken by the Proponent in relation to the complaint and enquiry, the reason(s) why no action was taken. The Complaints and Enquiries Register shall be made available for inspection by the Director-General upon req uest. Provision of Electronic lnformation 6.4 The Proponent shall establish and maintain a new website, or dedicated pages within its existing website for the provision of electronic information associated with the project. The Proponent shall publish and maintain up-to-date information on this website or dedicated pages including, but not necessarily limited to: a) a copy of the documents referred to under condition 1.1 of this approval, and any documentation supporting modifications to this approval that may be granted from time to time; b) a copy of this approval and each relevant environmental approval, licence or permit required and obtained in relation to the project; c) a copy of each strategy, plan and program required under this approval; and d) the outcomes of compliance tracking in accordance with condition 5.1 of this approval. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Envi ronmental Representative 7.1 Prior to the commencement of construction of the project, or othenruise agreed by the Director-General, the Proponent shall nominate a suitably qualified and experienced Environmental Representative(s) for the approval of the Director-General. The Proponent shall employ the Environmental Representative(s) on a full-time basis, or as otherwise agreed by the Director-General, during the construction and operation of the project. The Environmental Representative(s) shall be: a) the principal contact point in relation to the environmental performance of the project; b) responsible for all management plans and monitoring programs required under this approval; c) responsible for considering and advising on matters specified in the conditions of this approval, and all other licences and approvals related to the environmental performance and impacts of the project; d) responsible for receiving and responding to complaints and enquiries in accordance with condition 6.2 and 6.3 of this approval; and NSW Government Department of Planning '12

156 e) given the authority and independence to require reasonable steps be taken to avoid or minimise unintended or adverse environmental impacts, and failing the effectiveness of such steps, to direct that relevant actions be ceased immediately should an adverse impact on the environment be likely to occur. Construction Environmental Management Plan 7.2 Prior to the commencement of construction of the project, the Proponent shall prepare and implement a Construction Environmental Management Plan to outline environmental management practices and procedures to be followed during construction of the project. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with Guideline for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plans (DIPNR 2004) and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) a description of all activities to be undertaken on the Site during construction including an indication of stages of construction, where relevant; b) statutory and other obligations that the Proponent is required to fulfil during construction including all approvals, consultations and agreements required from authorities and other stakeholders, and key legislation and policies; c) details of how the environmental performance of the construction works will be monitored, and what actions will be taken to address identified adverse environmental impacts. ln particular, the following environmental performance issues shall be addressed in the Plan: i) measures to monitor and manage dust emissions; ii) measures to monitor and minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to lands and/ or waters during construction activities; and iii) measures to monitor and control noise emissions during construction works. d) a description of the roles and responsibilities for all relevant employees involved in the construction of the project; e) the additional studies listed under condition 7.3 of this approval; and 0 complaints and enquiries handling procedures during construction. Prior to the commencement of construction of the Stage 4 Project, the Proponent shall revise the Construction Environment Management Plan and associated plans and protocol referred to in conditions 7.2 and 7.3 to incorporate this stage of the project. The Plan (and revisions to the Plan) shall be submitted for the approval of the Director- General no later than one month prior to the commencement of any construction works associated with the project (including the Stage 4 Project), or within such period othen vise agreed by the Director-General. Construction works shall not commence until written approval has been received from the Director-General. 7.3 As part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the project required under condition 7.2 of this approval, the Proponent shall prepare and implement the following: a) a Gonstruction Surface Water Management Plan to detail how surface water and stormwater will be managed on the Site during construction. The Plan shall include use of appropriately-sized stormwater controls, in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater So/s and Construcfion (Landcom, 2004). The Plan shall include specific measures to avoid sediment-laden stormwater from entering wetland areas or the Hunter River, and a monitoring program for stormwater leaving the Site; b) a Construction Noise and Vibration'Management Plan to detail how construction noise and vibration impacts would be minimised and managed, including, but not necessarily limited to: i) details of construction activities and a schedule for construction works; ii) identification of construction activities that have the potential to generate noise and/ or vibration and adjacent industrial development (specifically the Kooragang Bulk Facilities);impacts on surounding land uses, particularly residential areas iii) a detailed description of what actions and measures would be implemented to ensure that these works would comply with the relevant noise and vibration criteria/ guidelines; iv) procedures for notifying residents of construction activities that are likely to effect their noise and vibration amenity, as well as procedures for dealing with and responding to noise complaints and enquiries; and NSW Government Department of Planning 13

157 v) a description of how the effectiveness of these actions and measures would be monitored during the proposed works, clearly indicating how often this monitoring would be conducted, how the results of this monitoring would be recorded; and, if any non-compliance is detected. c) a Gonstruction Traffic Management Protocol to detail how heavy vehicle movements associated with the project will be managed during construction, including Site preparation and fill/ preloading activities. The Protocol shall specifically address the movement of oversize loads to and from the Site, the management of construction traffic, restrictions to the hours of heavy vehicle movements to avoid road use conflicts, and the transport of construction waste materials. The Construction Traffic Management Protocol (and revisions to the Protocol) shall be submitted for the approval of the RMS and Council, prior to its submission to the Director-General for approval. For Stage 4 Project works, a revised protocol shall take into account the completion of the Tourle Street Bridge and the improved regional connectivity provided by the new bridge to lndustrial Drive and Pacific Highway. Operation Environmental Management Plan 7.4 Prior to the Commencement of Operations, the Proponent shall prepare and submit for the approval of the Director-General an Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) to detail an environmental management framework, practices and procedures to be followed during the operation of the project. The Plan shall be consistent with the Department's ' Guideline for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plans (DIPNR 2004), and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: a) a description of all activities to be undertaken on the Site during operation including an indication of stages of operation, where relevant; b) statutory and other obligations that the Proponent is required to fulfil during operation including all approvals, consultations and agreements required from authorities and other stakeholders, and key legislation and policies; c) details of how the environmental performance of the operations will be monitored, and what actions will be taken to address identified adverse environmental impacts. ln particular, the following environmental performance issues shall be addressed in the Plan: i) measures to monitor and manage dust emissions; ii) measures to monitor and minimise soil erosion and the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to lands and/ or waters during operation; and iii) measures to monitor and control noise emissions during operation. d) a description of the roles and responsibilities for all relevant employees involved in the operation of the project; e) the additional plans/protocol listed under condition 7.5 of this approval; and 0 complaints and enquiries handling procedures during operation. The Operation Environmental Management Plan shall be made available for inspection by the public upon request following its approval by the Director-General. 7.5 As part of the Operation Environmental Management Plan for the project required under condition 7.4 of this approval, the Proponent shall prepare and implement the following: a) a Dust Management Plan to outline measures to minimise and manage any impacts from the operation of the project on local air quality. The Plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) identification of all major sources of dust emissions that may occur as result of the operation of the project; ii) description of the procedures to manage the dust emissions from the sources identified; iii) identification of the locations where monitoring of dust emissions is to be undertaken; NSW Government Department of Planning 14

158 iv) procedures for monitoring dust emissions from the project, in accordance with the requirements of this approval and the Environment Protection Licence for the project; v) protocols for regular maintenance of plant and equipment, to minimise the potential for fugitive dust emissions; and vi) description of procedures to be undertaken if any non-compliance is detected. b) a Noise Management Plan to outline monitoring, management procedures and measures to minimise total operational noise emissions from the project. The Plan shall also include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) identification of all relevant receivers and the applicable criteria at those receivers commensurate with the noise limits specified under this approval; ii) identification of activities that will be carried out in relation to the project and the associated noise sources; iii) assessment of project noise impacts at the relevant receivers against the noise limits specified under this approval; iv) details of all management methods and procedures that will be implemented to control individual and overall noise emissions from the Site during the project; v) details regarding the procurement process to guarantee that equipment levels meet the noise levels as provided in the documents listed in condition 1.1; vi) development of reactive and pro-active strategies for dealing promptly with any noise complaints and enquiries; vii) noise monitoring and reporting procedures; and viii) regular internal audits of compliance of all plant and equipment with acceptable design noise. c) a Water Management Plan to outline the water management system for the Site. The Plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) predicted Site water balance including the water supply system; ii) details regarding water management structures such as settling ponds and water tanks; iii) locations and design specifications for all water diversions from undisturbed runoff areas including channel design and stabilisation, sediment retention storages and other structures; iv) details on the internal drainage system including bunding, drainage channels, dewatering sumps and any pipelines; v) procedures for the management of groundwater encountered on Site and any temporary dewatering facilities; and vi) procedures to be implemented to minimise potential surface water impacts. d) a Spontaneous Gombustion Management Protocol to outline measures to minimise and manage the spontaneous combustion of the coal stockpiles. The Protocol shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: i) coal stockpile management measures; ii) monitoring of potential causes of spontaneous combustion events; and i ) corrective action in the event of spontaneous combustion. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING Incident Reporting 8.1 The Proponent shall notify the Director-General of any incident with actual or potential significant off-site impacts on people or the biophysical environment as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the incident. The Proponent shall provide written details of the incident to the Director-General within seven days of the date on which the incident occurred. 8.2 The Proponent shall maintain a register of accidents, incidents and potential incidents with actual or potential significant off-site impacts on people or the biophysical environment. The register shall be made available for inspection at any time by the independent qualified person or team conducting the Environmental Audit and/or the Director-General. 8.3 The Proponent shall meet the requirements of the Director-General to address the cause or impact of any incident, as it relates to this consent, reported in accordance with condition 8.1 of this consent, within such period as the Director-General may agree. NSW Government Department of Planning 15

159 NSW Government Department of Planning 16

160 APPENDIX C COMMUNITY ENQUIRIES REGISTER /01/01

161 Community Enquiries Database NOTE: ALL FIELDS MUST BE FILLED Enquiry No. Date Received Time Received (24hr) Method of Receival Last Name First Name Phone Number Unit & Street No. Street Name Suburb Postcode Nature of Enquiry PWCS Site Investigator Manager to Review Enquiry Within 5 Days? Incident Report Completed? Enquiry Investigation Form Completed? Enquiry Status Date Enquiry Closed PWCS Accountable? Actions Taken, Outcomes and Follow Up Contact Don't use the enquirers personal details in this section. Resident contacted Port Waratah via submission of an online community enquiry via the Port Waratah website. Resident has Mar-15 7:42 PM Online Community Enquiry Hampson Ken kenolaham@gmail.com Palm Lakes Resort 1117 Nelson Bay Road Fern Bay 2295 Noise KCT ES & SS No Yes No Closed 30-Apr-15 No recently moved to the area and has raised concern with noise and pollution, and they are loosing sleep. They weren't sure where the noise is coming from, but thought it was from KCT. The resident has requested to be contacted via . response forwarded by Enviro Eng on 18/3 requesting further information detailing type of noise and relevant time(s). No response recieved as of 30 April 2015, enquiry considered closed. Received from a motorist via the online enquiry line regarding a 'TOXIC' Smell and Pollution along Port Waratah Coal Services terminal on Cormorant Road. Smell encounted most if not every day the motorist drives past KCT from Port Apr-15 10:47 AM Online Community Enquiry Lewis Port Stephens Other KCT BL No No No Closed 30-Apr-15 No Stephens. The motorist stated that others have also noticed the bad smell who have raised concerns regarding possible health implications if exposed. The motorist requests that an investigation is performed to determine the source of the odour. PWCS responded via 8/4/15 (delay due to returning from Easter long weekend) acknowledging the motorists concerns however stating that source is unlikely due to coal terminals (PWCS or NCIG) and directing them to the EPA enquiry line for further assistance with his enquiry. No response recieved as of 30 April 2015, enquiry considered closed. Page 1 of 1

162

163 APPENDIX D AGGREGATION OF QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORTS /01/01

164

165 PORT WARATAH KOORAGANG STAGE 3 EXPANSION QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS REPORT FOR JULY, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER 2014 (Q3 2014) For more info visit pwcs.com.au or ring (02)

166 DOCUMENT CONTROL Uncontrolled if printed Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: T. Thompson E. Simic E. Simic Revision: 1 Date: 6 th January 2015 Doc Id: Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 2 of 21

167 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION MONITORING RESULTS CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES PLANT AND EQUIPMENT KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 3 of 21

168 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) is required under its conditions of consent for the Stage 3 Expansion (DA35/96, Condition 30) to prepare a quarterly report detailing all monitoring results arising from the implementation of consent conditions which require the carrying out of monitoring programs. This report, for the quarterly period of July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014), reports the results of all monitoring required by consent conditions, being consent conditions 7, 11, 22, 27, 28 and 29. Port Waratah progressively implemented the Stage 3 Expansion scope of work that included construction and operational activities. The certification statement for the most recently completed component of the Stage 3 Expansion, 3Exp, was submitted and acknowledged by the NSW Department of Planning on 6 th October The monitoring results show that all activities are within the requirements set down in the conditions of consent. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. However, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 2 BACKGROUND Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) owns and operates two coal loading terminals in the Port of Newcastle, being the Carrington Coal Terminal (CCT) and the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT). The Carrington Coal Terminal commenced operation in 1975 and is not the subject of this report. The Minister for Public Works granted KCT approval for Stages 1 and 2 in The terminal has been progressively developed since its commencement with Stage 2 being completed in An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT was prepared in A development application (DA 35/96) was submitted to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 34 with consent being granted in late 1996 subject to 43 Conditions of Consent. This consent was challenged through the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (LEC). The LEC ruling subsequently confirmed consent on 23rd July The objector then lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court. Legislation by the NSW State Government confirmed consent in late 1997 subject to the original 43 conditions imposed by the Minister. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 4 of 21

169 Port Waratah has completed the KCT Stage 3 Expansion scope of work. This has included: the construction of a third and fourth shiploading berth and third shiploader navigational dredging of the Hunter River South Arm sufficient for a third and fourth berth the construction of a third receival and shipping stream the construction of an additional stackers and associated conveyors additional stockpile capacity and associated conveyors. the construction of an additional reclaimer. On 23 rd April 2007, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) granted approval for the further expansion of the KCT through Project Application 06_0189. Further to this, on 31 st May 2010, DoP approved a modification to the 2007 Approval (06_0189 MOD 1) to accommodate KCT s Stage 4 scope of works. This approval was again approved for modification on 5 th April 2012 by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, formerly DoP) to accommodate rail modifications associated with the Stage 4 scope of works (06_0189 MOD 2), and modified again on 26 th November 2012 (06_0189 MOD 3) to update the schedule of lands. This is considered to be the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Approval. Compliance with the consent conditions for the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Project Approval is reported separately as required by the approval, however as operational components constructed under DA 35/96 and PA 06_0189 MOD 3, this monitoring report includes noise monitoring results relevant to both approvals. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. However, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 3 INTRODUCTION The consent given for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT included 43 conditions of consent, some of which require a number of monitoring programs to be implemented for both construction and operational activities. Under consent condition No. 30, Port Waratah is obligated as follows: All monitoring results arising from these conditions of consent shall be included in Quarterly Reports and submitted to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC. NOTE: Following changes in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to the structure of the NSW Government ministries, the separate Quarterly Reports previously sent to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC are now reduced to one copy and sent to the Newcastle Office of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 5 of 21

170 4 MONITORING RESULTS Of the 43 consent conditions approved under DA 35/96, the following have monitoring requirements. Following the listed conditions are details of Port Waratah s implementation and compliance with the specific condition. 4.1 CONDITION NO. 7 A comprehensive Noise Study of the existing and Stage 3 Development in consultation with the EPA and to the satisfaction of the Director-General and the EPA. The study shall include, but not be limited to: On-going monitoring at the boundary of the property; and Incorporation of rail noise near the terminal into noise modelling Requirements On-going acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) property is required. Purpose To establish a database of noise levels for reference and comparison. Methodology An independent noise consultant conducts on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT plant and equipment and uses actual KCT operating logs to quantify the on-site operating sound power levels (SWL s) throughout the quarter. Results Table 1 presents the calculated maximum and operating on-site SWL s for the previous 12 months. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 6 of 21

171 Table 1: Measured On-Site Sound Power Levels at KCT Month Site Maximum SWL 1 Site Maximum Site Mean Operating Operating SWL 2 SWL 3 October dba 132 dba 131 dba November dba 132 dba 130 dba December dba 132 dba 130 dba January dba 132 dba 130 dba February dba 132 dba 131 dba March dba 132 dba 130 dba April dba 132 dba 130 dba May dba 132 dba 130 dba June dba 132 dba 130 dba July dba 132 dba 131 dba August dba 132 dba 130 dba September dba 132 dba 130 dba Note 1: Site Maximum SWL This is the maximum sound power level (SWL) assuming that all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously (in practice this would rarely occur). Note 2: Site Maximum Operating SWL This is the typical maximum SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the plant and equipment run-time derived from the KCT operating log. Note 3: Site Mean Operating SWL This is the logarithmic mean SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the same factors that determined the Site Maximum Operating SWL. 4.2 CONDITION NO. 11 An Acid Sulphate Testing Programme in consultation with DLWC and to the satisfaction of the Director General. The programme shall include but not be limited to testing for potential acid sulphate soil material in representative samples of fines and sands from all proposed dredging sites and the existing site ponds. Testing shall include the use of the Potential Acidity Test. In the event that testing confirms the presence of acid sulphate soil material, an Acid Sulphate Control Plan be developed in conjunction with DLWC to the satisfaction of the Director General. Requirement Implementation of a program to test for the potential of acid sulphate soil in regards to the dredge material and existing ponds. Status No dredging or excavation activities have occurred under the Stage 3 (DA 35/96) scope of works during this quarter. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 7 of 21

172 4.3 CONDITION NO. 22 The Applicant shall in consultation with Freight Rail develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of the Kooragang Coal Terminal s rail unloading operations on delays to trains along the delivery route. Requirement To develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of rail unloading operations on coal train movements along the delivery route. Purpose To ensure that rail unloading operations at the terminal are organised and planned with a focus on limiting the impacts of rail movement on route to the terminal. Methodology Establish appropriate plans, studies, agreements and initiatives to meet the requirements. Results The establishment and progression of the initiatives and their status are listed as follows: The Hunter Valley Coal Chain capacity plan is being implemented. Modelling work is complete for the development of a fully integrated 10 Year Capacity Master Plan for the coal chain. Port Waratah has entered into 10 year long term take-or-pay contracts with Producers. A capital investment program continues being developed and implemented to meet these contracted volumes. Maintenance outages between the infrastructure and asset owners are coordinated and underway. The Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (HVCCC) was incorporated in 2009 with all Service Providers and Hunter Valley Coal Chain Producers being members. The HVCCC utilise the Integrated Planning System (IPS) as a common scheduling tool for all Members. A set of procedures for the operatives of the Terminal loops including Port Waratah, ARTC, and Rolling Stock Operators have been developed and are being utilised. Procedures are reviewed and updated as required. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 8 of 21

173 4.4 CONDITION NO. 27 The Applicant shall within three months of the date of this consent, commence TSP and dust deposition monitoring as required by Condition 9 in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General. Requirement Commence monitoring of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and dust deposition as required by Condition No. 9. Purpose To monitor air quality and provide data for reference to specified guidelines. Methodology Establishment of a monitoring program to the satisfaction of the EPA and in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 9. Obtaining data from the monitoring program for Dust Deposition, Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Review of data against specified goals. Results All monitoring results in residential areas were generally within the air quality goals specified under condition 6 of DA 35/96. Deposited Dust results for North Stockton have been heavily influenced by an increase in localised sand received at this location. Monitoring site locations are shown in Appendix A - Figure A.7 Refer to the following tables and figures for quarterly and 12 monthly results: Dust Deposition Data: Table 2 and Figures 1, 2, 3 PM10 Data: Table 3 and Figure 4 TSP Data: Table 3 and Figures 5, 6 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 9 of 21

174 Table 2: Results of Dust Deposition Monitoring No. Port Waratah ID Total Insoluble Solids (g/m²/month) Location Jul 2014 Aug 2014 Sep Month Ave Stage 3 Residential Guideline (g/m²/month) Comments 1 DDG-K1 North Stockton * 12.2* Residential Note 1. 3 DDG-K3 KCT Site West DDG-K4 KCT Site South DDG-K5 KCT Site West ** 4.98 A 1.70 B No guideline for these sites 3.72 A 1.98 B 6 DDG-K6 KCT Site North DDG-K7 Kooragang Island East A 3.60 B as they are in nonresidential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 8 DDG-K8 Fern Bay Residential Note 1. 9 DDG-K9 Kooragang Island South DDG-K10 Kooragang Island East DDG-K11 KCT Site Wharf DDG-K12 KCT Site North East A 2.96 B 5.64 A 5.11 B 3.81 A 3.63 B No guideline for these sites as they are in nonresidential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 13 DDG-C1 Stockton Prawner s Club Residential Note 1. Note 1: Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3 for graphs of previous 12 months results. * The result contained a large proportion of sand ** The result was heavily contaminated with bird droppings. A: 12 Month Average including results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants B: 12 Month Average excluding results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 10 of 21

175 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 1: Site 1 North Stockton Dust Deposition (DDG-K1) Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay Dust Deposition (DDG-K8) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 11 of 21

176 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Ash Combustible Matter < Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 3: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) Dust Deposition (DDG-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 12 of 21

177 Table 3: Results of High Volume Air Sampling Results of HVAS (µg/m³) Stage 3 Air Quality Goals (µg/m³) No. Port Waratah ID & Location Location 03-Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep-14 Max 12 Month Average 24 Hour Max Comments PM 10 8 HVAS - K3 Fern Bay Total Suspended Particulates HVAS - K1 KCT Site HVAS - K2 Fern Bay HVAS - C1 Stockton Result * Month Rolling Ave Result This monitoring site is used for Port Waratah 12 Month environmental management purposes Rolling Ave being located within the terminal boundary. Result * Month Note Rolling Ave Result * Month Rolling Ave Note 1: Refer to Figures 4, 5 & 6 for graphical representation of the previous 12 months of monitoring results. * did not run due to a power supply failure. Note 1 Note 1 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 13 of 21

178 Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-13 5-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-14 3-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-14 4-Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 9-Jul Jul-14 2-Aug Aug Aug-14 7-Sep Sep-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay PM10 High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K3) Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-13 5-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-14 3-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-14 4-Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 9-Jul Jul-14 2-Aug Aug Aug-14 7-Sep Sep-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 3: Site 8 Fern Bay TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K2) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 14 of 21

179 Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Jul Jul Jul-13 7-Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep-13 6-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-13 5-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-14 3-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-14 4-Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 4: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 15 of 21

180 4.5 CONDITION NO. 28 The Applicant shall prior to commencement of construction implement a noise monitoring programme in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General to confirm compliance with Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Requirement To implement a noise monitoring program to confirm compliance with Condition No. 3 (Construction Noise Limits) and Condition No. 4 (Operational Noise Limits). Purpose To ensure compliance of terminal construction work and terminal operations to specified and approved noise limits. Methodology a) Construction: Carry out noise monitoring of construction activities in accordance with the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan, with the focus on the impact of KCT on industrial and residential neighbours. b) Operations: The noise consultant will conduct on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT Plant and Equipment and use KCT operating logs and prevailing weather conditions to quantify the maximum intrusive sound pressure level (SPL) at residential locations in Fern Bay, Stockton & Mayfield. Results a) Construction: No construction activities were conducted during Q b) Operations: All operational activities for Q were within the limits and requirements identified in the consent conditions. For the location of monitoring sites refer to Figure A.7 in Appendix A. For Noise Survey results see; Tables 4 & 5 for Residential Noise Monitoring data; and, Table 6 for Industrial Boundary Noise Monitoring data. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 16 of 21

181 Table 4: Construction Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial and Residential Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results (L A10 (15 min) ) Noise Criteria* (L A10 (15 min) ) Q Q Q Q Industrial Locations IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage NR NC NC NC 65 IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities NR NC NC NC 65 IB5 Sims Metal NR NC NC NC 65 IB6 Oil Seed Processing Plant NR NC NC NC 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern NR NC NC NC 65 Residential Locations BG1 Fullerton Rd, North Stockton NR NC NC NC 47 BG3 Stockton Hospital, North Stockton NR NC NC NC 54 BG4 Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay NR NC NC NC 52 BG5 Nelson Bay Rd, Fern Bay NR NC NC NC 49 M3 Arthur Street, Mayfield NR NC NC NC 51 M5 George Street, Mayfield NR NC NC NC 52 NR: Not Required (construction activities previously determined to be compliant) NC: No construction activities during the quarter *: Noise Criteria under Neutral Atmospheric Conditions Table 5: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results in Residential Areas Location ID FN1 (BG5) FW1 (BG4) Location Description KCT Contributed Residential Noise Levels Q Q Q Q L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) A* B** A* B** A* B** A* B** Allowable Noise Level^ L A10(15 min) Bayway Village, Fern Bay <35 41 <32 41 <36 41 < Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay <31 41 < FE1 Braid Road, Fern Bay <37 41 < < SW1 (BG1) Fullerton Street, Stockton <41 39 <31 39 <40 39 < SE1 Eames Road, Stockton <39 39 <32 39 <41 39 < W1 Stevenson Avenue, Mayfield West <36 28 <33 28 <41 28 < M1 Bull Street, Mayfield <35 28 <39 28 <39 28 < M4 Arthur Street, Mayfield <39 28 <38 28 <40 28 < Cnr Hargrave & Young C1 <36 28 <37 28 <40 28 < Streets, Carrington NOTE 1: A* = Estimated KCT Contribution LA10(15 min) during survey under prevailing weather conditions. B** = Maximum Intrusive Sound Pressure Level (SPL) This is the maximum SPL assuming all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously under neutral weather conditions. ^ = indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 17 of 21

182 Table 6: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results^ L A10(15 min) Q Q Q Q Noise Criteria^ L A10(15 min) MW1 Steel River Estate <60 <60 <60 <60 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern <50 <53 <52 <50 70 IB1 EDI Admin Building IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities IB4 Incitec Heron Road IB5 Sims Metal IB6 Cargill Australia MN1 OneSteel <60 <60 <60 <60 70 ^ indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions. NOTE: There have been results at IB3, i.e. Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) industrial boundary, above the 70dBA noise criteria in previous quarterly reports. Port Waratah have applied sound attenuation measures to the work areas of the KBF receptors. This is regarded as compliance with Consent Condition 4 dot point 3 and 5, as the best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise in the design and operation of the plant and equipment and in attenuating the KBF receptors. Refer to Section 6.2 in Appendix B for details of best available technology employed to minimise noise in plant and equipment and KBF sound attenuation measures. In addition a staged change out of Stage 1 and 2 rollers in the vicinity of KBF using Stage 3 quiet rollers occurred in Q reducing noise levels further. 4.6 CONDITION NO. 29 The Applicant shall prior to the commencement of dredging implement a water quality monitoring programme in the South Arm of the Hunter River upstream and downstream of the dredge sites in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General Requirement To implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Hunter River South Arm to determine background status for dredging activities. Status No dredging activities occurred during this quarter related to the Stage 3 Expansion, thus there were no requirements for water quality monitoring. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 18 of 21

183 5 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS Figure A.5: KCT Environmental Monitoring Locations Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 19 of 21

184 6 APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES 6.1 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT The noise mitigation measures that Port Waratah have implemented in the plant and equipment on site include: Development and installation of low noise idlers including: o o o o o o o Idler shell surface concentric with bearing housings therefore concentric with axis of rotation Smooth idler shell surface to reduce belt idler interaction noise Limits on roundness of idler shell surface (Total Indicated Run out TIR) Dynamic balancing of idlers after assembly Limits on idler self-noise Quality assurance testing program during manufacture to ensure idler specification is being achieved Port Waratah authorised idler specification setting out technical requirements, quality assurance testing program, acceptance criteria etc. Development and installation of low noise conveyor drives including offsite full load testing to demonstrate compliance with specification Random return idler spacing to control belt flapping which causes low frequency structure borne noise Soft mounted noise barriers on conveyors Enclosed conveyor gantries Conveyor equipment inspections to replace worn idlers Development and installation of phase control on vibratory feeders to control low frequency noise Development and installation of start-up and travel alarms with variable frequency and volume The conveyor design, conveyor idlers and conveyor drives are regarded as best available technology, which can be demonstrated by the measured sound power levels (SWL) of the as installed and operating equipment detailed in Table A.7. Table A.7: Comparison of Measured Sound Power Levels Item Standard Specification Low Noise Specification Transfer Conveyors 110 dba per 100 metres 100 dba per 100 metres Conveyor Drives 115 to 118 dba gearbox noise dominant 100 dba with reduced gearbox noise The cost to install the best available low noise technology is estimated to be: an additional 25% for Low Noise Conveyors; and, an additional 45% for Low Noise Conveyor Drives Port Waratah has led the way in developing the low noise conveyor and drive technology. When planning to construct the Stage 3 Expansion, the noise modelling results indicated that the noise limits may be exceeded if the existing technology was installed. Therefore improved and more reliable technology had to be sought so Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 20 of 21

185 that KCT could operate with greater certainty and in compliance with the consent condition noise requirements. A survey of the best available technology for conveyor drives and idlers revealed that a new standard was required. Port Waratah realised that if that was to be achieved then they would have to take the initiative and lead the way. After much research of what makes noise, new plant and equipment specifications were released with SWL limits as part of the acceptance criteria. When the new specifications were released, the suppliers response was to advise that they were unachievable. However, Port Waratah supported those manufactures that were willing to try and develop equipment to meet the new criteria in the specifications. The success of this work is demonstrated with installed and measured SWL as detailed in Table A KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES The Industrial Boundary Noise monitoring conducted in the past has shown the noise levels at Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) boundary to be up to 3 dba in excess of 70 dba, however, Consent Condition 4 does allow for the 70 dba to be exceeded...in circumstances where best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise emissions. Port Waratah considers that in the past, best available technology has been employed to minimise noise emissions and therefore interpreted the results as compliant. A review of the available technology and the potential application to the KBF noise levels was undertaken by a consultant commissioned by Port Waratah which indicated a potential method of addressing this issue. In this regard, Port Waratah replaced 88 idlers to new low noise idlers in proximity to KBF. A noise assessment carried out by an acoustical consultant on March 12, 2009, following the idler replacement, has indicated that noise levels at KBF have dropped from dba to 71 dba following the replacement of 88 idlers in proximity to the KBF Administration Building. The consultant has recommended that given the potential for conveyor noise to increase over time, and the substantial reduction in noise levels at KBF following this campaign of idler replacements, further idler replacements may be deemed necessary, via a staged program to suit operations and maintenance programs. Since the noise assessment on March 12, 2009, four monitoring assessments have indicated noise levels at KBF to be 70dBA, thus not exceeding the 70dBA noise criteria. Noise levels will continue to be monitored at KBF with feasible noise mitigation measures implemented where deemed necessary. In regards to the internal noise relevant to the offices at KBF, Port Waratah has undertaken works in the past to address any immediate noise emissions. In 1998, following the completion of the Stage 2 scope of work for the expansion of KCT, which included an additional shipping conveyor past the KBF offices, the KBF manager identified that the noise levels inside their offices were unacceptable when both shipping conveyors where operating. Port Waratah carried out both attended and unattended logging of noise and found the internal noise level to be unacceptably high for an office environment. The measured internal sound pressure level (SPL) was around 53 dba. As Port Waratah did not have low noise options available then it was decided to install sound attenuation to the KBF office in the form of: Double glazing to the windows, Leaded vinyl in the ceiling cavity of the building An air lock entry to the building This reduced the SPL in the office to around 46 dba, which is acceptable for an office environment and acceptable to KBF. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for July, August & September 2014 (Q3 2014) Page 21 of 21

186 PORT WARATAH KOORAGANG STAGE 3 EXPANSION QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS REPORT FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER & DECEMBER 2014 (Q4 2014) For more info visit pwcs.com.au or ring (02)

187 DOCUMENT CONTROL Uncontrolled if printed Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: T. Thompson E. Simic E. Simic Revision: 1 Date: 29 th April 2015 Doc Id: Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 2 of 21

188 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION MONITORING RESULTS CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES PLANT AND EQUIPMENT KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 3 of 21

189 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) is required under its conditions of consent for the Stage 3 Expansion (DA35/96, Condition 30) to prepare a quarterly report detailing all monitoring results arising from the implementation of consent conditions which require the carrying out of monitoring programs. This report, for the quarterly period of October, November and December 2014 (Q4 2014), reports the results of all monitoring required by consent conditions, being consent conditions 7, 11, 22, 27, 28 and 29. Port Waratah progressively implemented the Stage 3 Expansion scope of work that included construction and operational activities. The certification statement for the most recently completed component of the Stage 3 Expansion, 3Exp, was submitted and acknowledged by the NSW Department of Planning on 6 th October The monitoring results show that all activities are within the requirements set down in the conditions of consent. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. However, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 2 BACKGROUND Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) owns and operates two coal loading terminals in the Port of Newcastle, being the Carrington Coal Terminal (CCT) and the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT). The Carrington Coal Terminal commenced operation in 1975 and is not the subject of this report. The Minister for Public Works granted KCT approval for Stages 1 and 2 in The terminal has been progressively developed since its commencement with Stage 2 being completed in An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT was prepared in A development application (DA 35/96) was submitted to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 34 with consent being granted in late 1996 subject to 43 Conditions of Consent. This consent was challenged through the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (LEC). The LEC ruling subsequently confirmed consent on 23rd July The objector then lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court. Legislation by the NSW State Government confirmed consent in late 1997 subject to the original 43 conditions imposed by the Minister. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 4 of 21

190 Port Waratah has completed the KCT Stage 3 Expansion scope of work. This has included: the construction of a third and fourth shiploading berth and third shiploader navigational dredging of the Hunter River South Arm sufficient for a third and fourth berth the construction of a third receival and shipping stream the construction of an additional stackers and associated conveyors additional stockpile capacity and associated conveyors. the construction of an additional reclaimer. On 23 rd April 2007, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) granted approval for the further expansion of the KCT through Project Application 06_0189. Further to this, on 31 st May 2010, DoP approved a modification to the 2007 Approval (06_0189 MOD 1) to accommodate KCT s Stage 4 scope of works. This approval was again approved for modification on 5 th April 2012 by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, formerly DoP) to accommodate rail modifications associated with the Stage 4 scope of works (06_0189 MOD 2), and modified again on 26 th November 2012 (06_0189 MOD 3) to update the schedule of lands. This is considered to be the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Approval. Compliance with the consent conditions for the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Project Approval is reported separately as required by the approval, however as operational components constructed under DA 35/96 and PA 06_0189 MOD 3, this monitoring report includes noise monitoring results relevant to both approvals. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. As present, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 3 INTRODUCTION The consent given for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT included 43 conditions of consent, some of which require a number of monitoring programs to be implemented for both construction and operational activities. Under consent condition No. 30, Port Waratah is obligated as follows: All monitoring results arising from these conditions of consent shall be included in Quarterly Reports and submitted to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC. NOTE: Following changes in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to the structure of the NSW Government ministries, the separate Quarterly Reports previously sent to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC are now reduced to one copy and sent to the Newcastle Office of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 5 of 21

191 4 MONITORING RESULTS Of the 43 consent conditions approved under DA 35/96, the following have monitoring requirements. Following the listed conditions are details of Port Waratah s implementation and compliance with the specific condition. 4.1 CONDITION NO. 7 A comprehensive Noise Study of the existing and Stage 3 Development in consultation with the EPA and to the satisfaction of the Director-General and the EPA. The study shall include, but not be limited to: On-going monitoring at the boundary of the property; and Incorporation of rail noise near the terminal into noise modelling Requirements On-going acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) property is required. Purpose To establish a database of noise levels for reference and comparison. Methodology An independent noise consultant conducts on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT plant and equipment and uses actual KCT operating logs to quantify the on-site operating sound power levels (SWL s) throughout the quarter. Results Table 1 presents the calculated maximum and operating on-site SWL s for the previous 12 months. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 6 of 21

192 Table 1: Measured On-Site Sound Power Levels at KCT Month Site Maximum SWL 1 Site Maximum Site Mean Operating Operating SWL 2 SWL 3 January dba 132 dba 130 dba February dba 132 dba 131 dba March dba 132 dba 130 dba April dba 132 dba 130 dba May dba 132 dba 130 dba June dba 132 dba 130 dba July dba 132 dba 131 dba August dba 132 dba 130 dba September dba 132 dba 130 dba October dba 132 dba 131 dba November dba 132 dba 131 dba December dba 132 dba 131 dba Note 1: Site Maximum SWL This is the maximum sound power level (SWL) assuming that all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously (in practice this would rarely occur). Note 2: Site Maximum Operating SWL This is the typical maximum SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the plant and equipment run-time derived from the KCT operating log. Note 3: Site Mean Operating SWL This is the logarithmic mean SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the same factors that determined the Site Maximum Operating SWL. 4.2 CONDITION NO. 11 An Acid Sulphate Testing Programme in consultation with DLWC and to the satisfaction of the Director General. The programme shall include but not be limited to testing for potential acid sulphate soil material in representative samples of fines and sands from all proposed dredging sites and the existing site ponds. Testing shall include the use of the Potential Acidity Test. In the event that testing confirms the presence of acid sulphate soil material, an Acid Sulphate Control Plan be developed in conjunction with DLWC to the satisfaction of the Director General. Requirement Implementation of a program to test for the potential of acid sulphate soil in regards to the dredge material and existing ponds. Status No dredging or excavation activities have occurred under the Stage 3 (DA 35/96) scope of works during this quarter. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 7 of 21

193 4.3 CONDITION NO. 22 The Applicant shall in consultation with Freight Rail develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of the Kooragang Coal Terminal s rail unloading operations on delays to trains along the delivery route. Requirement To develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of rail unloading operations on coal train movements along the delivery route. Purpose To ensure that rail unloading operations at the terminal are organised and planned with a focus on limiting the impacts of rail movement on route to the terminal. Methodology Establish appropriate plans, studies, agreements and initiatives to meet the requirements. Results The establishment and progression of the initiatives and their status are listed as follows: The Hunter Valley Coal Chain capacity plan is being implemented. Modelling work is complete for the development of a fully integrated 10 Year Capacity Master Plan for the coal chain. Port Waratah has entered into 10 year long term take-or-pay contracts with Producers. A capital investment program continues being developed and implemented to meet these contracted volumes. Maintenance outages between the infrastructure and asset owners are coordinated and underway. The Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (HVCCC) was incorporated in 2009 with all Service Providers and Hunter Valley Coal Chain Producers being members. The HVCCC utilise the Integrated Planning System (IPS) as a common scheduling tool for all Members. A set of procedures for the operatives of the Terminal loops including Port Waratah, ARTC, and Rolling Stock Operators have been developed and are being utilised. Procedures are reviewed and updated as required. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 8 of 21

194 4.4 CONDITION NO. 27 The Applicant shall within three months of the date of this consent, commence TSP and dust deposition monitoring as required by Condition 9 in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General. Requirement Commence monitoring of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and dust deposition as required by Condition No. 9. Purpose To monitor air quality and provide data for reference to specified guidelines. Methodology Establishment of a monitoring program to the satisfaction of the EPA and in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 9. Obtaining data from the monitoring program for Dust Deposition, Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Review of data against specified goals. Results All monitoring results in residential areas were generally within the air quality goals specified under condition 6 of DA 35/96. Deposited Dust results for North Stockton have been heavily influenced by an increase in localised sand received at this location. Monitoring site locations are shown in Appendix A - Figure A.7 Refer to the following tables and figures for quarterly and 12 monthly results: Dust Deposition Data: Table 2 and Figures 1, 2, 3 PM10 Data: Table 3 and Figure 4 TSP Data: Table 3 and Figures 5, 6 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 9 of 21

195 Table 2: Results of Dust Deposition Monitoring No. Port Waratah ID Total Insoluble Solids (g/m²/month) Location Oct 2014 Nov 2014 Dec Month Ave Stage 3 Residential Guideline (g/m²/month) Comments 1 DDG-K1 North Stockton 7.8* 10.9* 8.7* 5.43* 4.0 Residential Note 1. 3 DDG-K3 KCT Site West DDG-K4 KCT Site South DDG-K5 KCT Site West ** 3.83 A 1.80 B 6 DDG-K6 KCT Site North DDG-K7 Kooragang Island East No guideline for these sites as they are in nonresidential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 8 DDG-K8 Fern Bay Residential Note 1. 9 DDG-K9 Kooragang Island South DDG-K10 Kooragang Island East DDG-K11 KCT Site Wharf ** 12 DDG-K12 KCT Site North East A 2.48 B 5.63 A 4.94 B 3.12 A 2.87 B No guideline for these sites as they are in nonresidential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 13 DDG-C1 Stockton Prawner s Club Residential Note 1. Note 1: Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3 for graphs of previous 12 months results. * The result contained a large proportion of sand, with the 12 month average also impacted ** The result was heavily contaminated with bird droppings. A: 12 Month Average including results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants B: 12 Month Average excluding results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 10 of 21

196 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains large amount of local sand Figure 1: Site 1 North Stockton Dust Deposition (DDG-K1) Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay Dust Deposition (DDG-K8) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 11 of 21

197 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Ash Combustible Matter < Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 3: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) Dust Deposition (DDG-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 12 of 21

198 Table 3: Results of High Volume Air Sampling Results of HVAS (µg/m³) Stage 3 Air Quality Goals (µg/m³) No. Port Waratah ID & Location Location 01-Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec-14 Max 12 Month Average 24 Hour Max Comments PM 10 8 HVAS - K3 Fern Bay Total Suspended Particulates Result Month Rolling Ave Note HVAS - K1 KCT Site HVAS - K2 Fern Bay HVAS - C1 Stockton Result This monitoring site is used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes 12 Month being located within the terminal boundary. Rolling Ave Result Month Rolling Ave Result * Month Rolling Ave Note 1: Refer to Figures 4, 5 & 6 for graphical representation of the previous 12 months of monitoring results. * did not run due to an electrical fault within the monitor. Note 1 Note 1 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 13 of 21

199 Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Jan Jan Jan-14 9-Feb Feb-14 5-Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr-14 4-May May May-14 9-Jun Jun-14 3-Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay PM10 High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K3) 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Jan Jan Jan-14 9-Feb Feb-14 5-Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr-14 4-May May May-14 9-Jun Jun-14 3-Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 3: Site 8 Fern Bay TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K2) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 14 of 21

200 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Jan Jan Jan-14 9-Feb Feb-14 5-Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr-14 4-May May May-14 9-Jun Jun-14 3-Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec-14 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 4: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 15 of 21

201 4.5 CONDITION NO. 28 The Applicant shall prior to commencement of construction implement a noise monitoring programme in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General to confirm compliance with Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Requirement To implement a noise monitoring program to confirm compliance with Condition No. 3 (Construction Noise Limits) and Condition No. 4 (Operational Noise Limits). Purpose To ensure compliance of terminal construction work and terminal operations to specified and approved noise limits. Methodology a) Construction: Carry out noise monitoring of construction activities in accordance with the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan, with the focus on the impact of KCT on industrial and residential neighbours. b) Operations: The noise consultant will conduct on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT Plant and Equipment and use KCT operating logs and prevailing weather conditions to quantify the maximum intrusive sound pressure level (SPL) at residential locations in Fern Bay, Stockton & Mayfield. Results a) Construction: No construction activities were conducted during Q b) Operations: All operational activities for Q were within the limits and requirements identified in the consent conditions. For the location of monitoring sites refer to Figure A.7 in Appendix A. For Noise Survey results see; Tables 4 & 5 for Residential Noise Monitoring data; and, Table 6 for Industrial Boundary Noise Monitoring data. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 16 of 21

202 Table 4: Construction Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial and Residential Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results (L A10 (15 min) ) Noise Criteria* (L A10 (15 min) ) Q Q Q Q Industrial Locations IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage NC NC NC NC 65 IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities NC NC NC NC 65 IB5 Sims Metal NC NC NC NC 65 IB6 Oil Seed Processing Plant NC NC NC NC 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern NC NC NC NC 65 Residential Locations BG1 Fullerton Rd, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 47 BG3 Stockton Hospital, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 54 BG4 Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 52 BG5 Nelson Bay Rd, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 49 M3 Arthur Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 51 M5 George Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 52 NC: No construction activities during the quarter *: Noise Criteria under Neutral Atmospheric Conditions Table 5: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results in Residential Areas Location ID FN1 (BG5) FW1 (BG4) Location Description KCT Contributed Residential Noise Levels Q Q Q Q L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) A* B** A* B** A* B** A* B** Allowable Noise Level^ L A10(15 min) Bayway Village, Fern Bay <32 41 <36 41 <35 41 < Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay <31 41 < FE1 Braid Road, Fern Bay < <35 41 < SW1 (BG1) Fullerton Street, Stockton <31 39 <40 39 <39 39 < SE1 Eames Road, Stockton <32 39 <41 39 <38 39 < W1 Stevenson Avenue, Mayfield West <33 28 <41 28 <34 28 < M1 Bull Street, Mayfield <39 28 <39 28 <32 28 < M4 Arthur Street, Mayfield <38 28 <40 28 <33 28 < Cnr Hargrave & Young C1 <37 28 <40 28 <30 28 < Streets, Carrington NOTE 1: A* = Estimated KCT Contribution LA10(15 min) during survey under prevailing weather conditions. B** = Maximum Intrusive Sound Pressure Level (SPL) This is the maximum SPL assuming all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously under neutral weather conditions. ^ = indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 17 of 21

203 Table 6: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results^ L A10(15 min) Q Q Q Q Noise Criteria^ L A10(15 min) MW1 Steel River Estate <60 <60 <60 <60 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern <53 <52 <50 <49 70 IB1 EDI Admin Building IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities IB4 Incitec Heron Road IB5 Sims Metal IB6 Cargill Australia MN1 OneSteel <60 <60 <60 <60 70 ^ indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions. NOTE: There have been results at IB3, i.e. Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) industrial boundary, above the 70dBA noise criteria in previous quarterly reports. Port Waratah have applied sound attenuation measures to the work areas of the KBF receptors. This is regarded as compliance with Consent Condition 4 dot point 3 and 5, as the best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise in the design and operation of the plant and equipment and in attenuating the KBF receptors. Refer to Section 6.2 in Appendix B for details of best available technology employed to minimise noise in plant and equipment and KBF sound attenuation measures. In addition a staged change out of Stage 1 and 2 rollers in the vicinity of KBF using Stage 3 quiet rollers occurred in Q reducing noise levels further. 4.6 CONDITION NO. 29 The Applicant shall prior to the commencement of dredging implement a water quality monitoring programme in the South Arm of the Hunter River upstream and downstream of the dredge sites in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General Requirement To implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Hunter River South Arm to determine background status for dredging activities. Status No dredging activities occurred during this quarter related to the Stage 3 Expansion, thus there were no requirements for water quality monitoring. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 18 of 21

204 5 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS Figure A.5: KCT Environmental Monitoring Locations Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 19 of 21

205 6 APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES 6.1 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT The noise mitigation measures that Port Waratah have implemented in the plant and equipment on site include: Development and installation of low noise idlers including: o o o o o o o Idler shell surface concentric with bearing housings therefore concentric with axis of rotation Smooth idler shell surface to reduce belt idler interaction noise Limits on roundness of idler shell surface (Total Indicated Run out TIR) Dynamic balancing of idlers after assembly Limits on idler self-noise Quality assurance testing program during manufacture to ensure idler specification is being achieved Port Waratah authorised idler specification setting out technical requirements, quality assurance testing program, acceptance criteria etc. Development and installation of low noise conveyor drives including offsite full load testing to demonstrate compliance with specification Random return idler spacing to control belt flapping which causes low frequency structure borne noise Soft mounted noise barriers on conveyors Enclosed conveyor gantries Conveyor equipment inspections to replace worn idlers Development and installation of phase control on vibratory feeders to control low frequency noise Development and installation of start-up and travel alarms with variable frequency and volume The conveyor design, conveyor idlers and conveyor drives are regarded as best available technology, which can be demonstrated by the measured sound power levels (SWL) of the as installed and operating equipment detailed in Table A.7. Table A.7: Comparison of Measured Sound Power Levels Item Standard Specification Low Noise Specification Transfer Conveyors 110 dba per 100 metres 100 dba per 100 metres Conveyor Drives 115 to 118 dba gearbox noise dominant 100 dba with reduced gearbox noise The cost to install the best available low noise technology is estimated to be: an additional 25% for Low Noise Conveyors; and, an additional 45% for Low Noise Conveyor Drives Port Waratah has led the way in developing the low noise conveyor and drive technology. When planning to construct the Stage 3 Expansion, the noise modelling results indicated that the noise limits may be exceeded if the existing technology was installed. Therefore improved and more reliable technology had to be sought so Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 20 of 21

206 that KCT could operate with greater certainty and in compliance with the consent condition noise requirements. A survey of the best available technology for conveyor drives and idlers revealed that a new standard was required. Port Waratah realised that if that was to be achieved then they would have to take the initiative and lead the way. After much research of what makes noise, new plant and equipment specifications were released with SWL limits as part of the acceptance criteria. When the new specifications were released, the suppliers response was to advise that they were unachievable. However, Port Waratah supported those manufactures that were willing to try and develop equipment to meet the new criteria in the specifications. The success of this work is demonstrated with installed and measured SWL as detailed in Table A KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES The Industrial Boundary Noise monitoring conducted in the past has shown the noise levels at Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) boundary to be up to 3 dba in excess of 70 dba, however, Consent Condition 4 does allow for the 70 dba to be exceeded...in circumstances where best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise emissions. Port Waratah considers that in the past, best available technology has been employed to minimise noise emissions and therefore interpreted the results as compliant. A review of the available technology and the potential application to the KBF noise levels was undertaken by a consultant commissioned by Port Waratah which indicated a potential method of addressing this issue. In this regard, Port Waratah replaced 88 idlers to new low noise idlers in proximity to KBF. A noise assessment carried out by an acoustical consultant on March 12, 2009, following the idler replacement, has indicated that noise levels at KBF have dropped from dba to 71 dba following the replacement of 88 idlers in proximity to the KBF Administration Building. The consultant has recommended that given the potential for conveyor noise to increase over time, and the substantial reduction in noise levels at KBF following this campaign of idler replacements, further idler replacements may be deemed necessary, via a staged program to suit operations and maintenance programs. Since the noise assessment on March 12, 2009, four monitoring assessments have indicated noise levels at KBF to be 70dBA, thus not exceeding the 70dBA noise criteria. Noise levels will continue to be monitored at KBF with feasible noise mitigation measures implemented where deemed necessary. In regards to the internal noise relevant to the offices at KBF, Port Waratah has undertaken works in the past to address any immediate noise emissions. In 1998, following the completion of the Stage 2 scope of work for the expansion of KCT, which included an additional shipping conveyor past the KBF offices, the KBF manager identified that the noise levels inside their offices were unacceptable when both shipping conveyors where operating. Port Waratah carried out both attended and unattended logging of noise and found the internal noise level to be unacceptably high for an office environment. The measured internal sound pressure level (SPL) was around 53 dba. As Port Waratah did not have low noise options available then it was decided to install sound attenuation to the KBF office in the form of: Double glazing to the windows, Leaded vinyl in the ceiling cavity of the building An air lock entry to the building This reduced the SPL in the office to around 46 dba, which is acceptable for an office environment and acceptable to KBF. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for October, November & December 2014 (Q4 2014) Page 21 of 21

207 PORT WARATAH KOORAGANG STAGE 3 EXPANSION QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS REPORT FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY & MARCH 2015 (Q1 2015) For more info visit pwcs.com.au or ring (02)

208 DOCUMENT CONTROL Uncontrolled if printed Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: T. Thompson E. Simic E. Simic Revision: 1 Date: 22 nd May 2015 Doc Id: Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 2 of 21

209 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION MONITORING RESULTS CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES PLANT AND EQUIPMENT KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 3 of 21

210 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) is required under its conditions of consent for the Stage 3 Expansion (DA35/96, Condition 30) to prepare a quarterly report detailing all monitoring results arising from the implementation of consent conditions which require the carrying out of monitoring programs. This report, for the quarterly period of January, February and March 2015 (Q1 2015), reports the results of all monitoring required by consent conditions, being consent conditions 7, 11, 22, 27, 28 and 29. Port Waratah progressively implemented the Stage 3 Expansion scope of work that included construction and operational activities. The certification statement for the most recently completed component of the Stage 3 Expansion, 3Exp, was submitted and acknowledged by the NSW Department of Planning on 6 th October The monitoring results show that all activities are within the requirements set down in the conditions of consent. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. However, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 2 BACKGROUND Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) owns and operates two coal loading terminals in the Port of Newcastle, being the Carrington Coal Terminal (CCT) and the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT). The Carrington Coal Terminal commenced operation in 1975 and is not the subject of this report. The Minister for Public Works granted KCT approval for Stages 1 and 2 in The terminal has been progressively developed since its commencement with Stage 2 being completed in An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT was prepared in A development application (DA 35/96) was submitted to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 34 with consent being granted in late 1996 subject to 43 Conditions of Consent. This consent was challenged through the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (LEC). The LEC ruling subsequently confirmed consent on 23rd July The objector then lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court. Legislation by the NSW State Government confirmed consent in late 1997 subject to the original 43 conditions imposed by the Minister. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 4 of 21

211 Port Waratah has completed the KCT Stage 3 Expansion scope of work. This has included: the construction of a third and fourth shiploading berth and third shiploader navigational dredging of the Hunter River South Arm sufficient for a third and fourth berth the construction of a third receival and shipping stream the construction of an additional stackers and associated conveyors additional stockpile capacity and associated conveyors. the construction of an additional reclaimer. On 23 rd April 2007, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) granted approval for the further expansion of the KCT through Project Application 06_0189. Further to this, on 31 st May 2010, DoP approved a modification to the 2007 Approval (06_0189 MOD 1) to accommodate KCT s Stage 4 scope of works. This approval was again approved for modification on 5 th April 2012 by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, formerly DoP) to accommodate rail modifications associated with the Stage 4 scope of works (06_0189 MOD 2), and modified again on 26 th November 2012 (06_0189 MOD 3) to update the schedule of lands. This is considered to be the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Approval. Compliance with the consent conditions for the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Project Approval is reported separately as required by the approval, however as operational components constructed under DA 35/96 and PA 06_0189 MOD 3, this monitoring report includes noise monitoring results relevant to both approvals. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. At present, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 3 INTRODUCTION The consent given for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT included 43 conditions of consent, some of which require a number of monitoring programs to be implemented for both construction and operational activities. Under consent condition No. 30, Port Waratah is obligated as follows: All monitoring results arising from these conditions of consent shall be included in Quarterly Reports and submitted to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC. NOTE: Following changes in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to the structure of the NSW Government ministries, the separate Quarterly Reports previously sent to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC are now reduced to one copy and sent to the Newcastle Office of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 5 of 21

212 4 MONITORING RESULTS Of the 43 consent conditions approved under DA 35/96, the following have monitoring requirements. Following the listed conditions are details of Port Waratah s implementation and compliance with the specific condition. 4.1 CONDITION NO. 7 A comprehensive Noise Study of the existing and Stage 3 Development in consultation with the EPA and to the satisfaction of the Director-General and the EPA. The study shall include, but not be limited to: On-going monitoring at the boundary of the property; and Incorporation of rail noise near the terminal into noise modelling Requirements On-going acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) property is required. Purpose To establish a database of noise levels for reference and comparison. Methodology An independent noise consultant conducts on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT plant and equipment and uses actual KCT operating logs to quantify the on-site operating sound power levels (SWL s) throughout the quarter. Results Table 1 presents the calculated maximum and operating on-site SWL s for the previous 12 months. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 6 of 21

213 Table 1: Measured On-Site Sound Power Levels at KCT Month Site Maximum SWL 1 Site Maximum Site Mean Operating Operating SWL 2 SWL 3 April dba 132 dba 130 dba May dba 132 dba 130 dba June dba 132 dba 130 dba July dba 132 dba 131 dba August dba 132 dba 130 dba September dba 132 dba 130 dba October dba 132 dba 131 dba November dba 132 dba 131 dba December dba 132 dba 131 dba January dba 132 dba 131 dba February dba 132 dba 131 dba March dba 132 dba 131 dba Note 1: Site Maximum SWL This is the maximum sound power level (SWL) assuming that all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously (in practice this would rarely occur). Note 2: Site Maximum Operating SWL This is the typical maximum SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the plant and equipment run-time derived from the KCT operating log. Note 3: Site Mean Operating SWL This is the logarithmic mean SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the same factors that determined the Site Maximum Operating SWL. 4.2 CONDITION NO. 11 An Acid Sulphate Testing Programme in consultation with DLWC and to the satisfaction of the Director General. The programme shall include but not be limited to testing for potential acid sulphate soil material in representative samples of fines and sands from all proposed dredging sites and the existing site ponds. Testing shall include the use of the Potential Acidity Test. In the event that testing confirms the presence of acid sulphate soil material, an Acid Sulphate Control Plan be developed in conjunction with DLWC to the satisfaction of the Director General. Requirement Implementation of a program to test for the potential of acid sulphate soil in regards to the dredge material and existing ponds. Status No dredging or excavation activities have occurred under the Stage 3 (DA 35/96) scope of works during this quarter. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 7 of 21

214 4.3 CONDITION NO. 22 The Applicant shall in consultation with Freight Rail develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of the Kooragang Coal Terminal s rail unloading operations on delays to trains along the delivery route. Requirement To develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of rail unloading operations on coal train movements along the delivery route. Purpose To ensure that rail unloading operations at the terminal are organised and planned with a focus on limiting the impacts of rail movement on route to the terminal. Methodology Establish appropriate plans, studies, agreements and initiatives to meet the requirements. Results The establishment and progression of the initiatives and their status are listed as follows: The Hunter Valley Coal Chain capacity plan is being implemented. Modelling work is complete for the development of a fully integrated 10 Year Capacity Master Plan for the coal chain. Port Waratah has entered into 10 year long term take-or-pay contracts with Producers. A capital investment program continues being developed and implemented to meet these contracted volumes. Maintenance outages between the infrastructure and asset owners are coordinated and underway. The Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (HVCCC) was incorporated in 2009 with all Service Providers and Hunter Valley Coal Chain Producers being members. The HVCCC utilise the Integrated Planning System (IPS) as a common scheduling tool for all Members. A set of procedures for the operatives of the Terminal loops including Port Waratah, ARTC, and Rolling Stock Operators have been developed and are being utilised. Procedures are reviewed and updated as required. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 8 of 21

215 4.4 CONDITION NO. 27 The Applicant shall within three months of the date of this consent, commence TSP and dust deposition monitoring as required by Condition 9 in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General. Requirement Commence monitoring of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and dust deposition as required by Condition No. 9. Purpose To monitor air quality and provide data for reference to specified guidelines. Methodology Establishment of a monitoring program to the satisfaction of the EPA and in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 9. Obtaining data from the monitoring program for Dust Deposition, Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Review of data against specified goals. Results All monitoring results in residential areas were generally within the air quality goals specified under condition 6 of DA 35/96. Deposited Dust results for North Stockton have been heavily influenced by an increase in localised sand received at this location. Monitoring site locations are shown in Appendix A - Figure A.7 Refer to the following tables and figures for quarterly and 12 monthly results: Dust Deposition Data: Table 2 and Figures 1, 2, 3 PM10 Data: Table 3 and Figure 4 TSP Data: Table 3 and Figures 5, 6 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 9 of 21

216 Table 2: Results of Dust Deposition Monitoring No. Port Waratah ID Total Insoluble Solids (g/m²/month) Location Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar DDG-K1 North Stockton ** 15.3** 12 Month Ave 7.55 A * 5.77 B * 3 DDG-K3 KCT Site West DDG-K4 KCT Site South DDG-K5 KCT Site West ^ 25.3^ 6 DDG-K6 KCT Site North DDG-K7 Kooragang Island East A 1.63 B Stage 3 Residential Guideline (g/m²/month) Comments 4.0 Residential Note 1. No guideline for these sites as they are in non-residential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 8 DDG-K8 Fern Bay Residential Note 1. 9 DDG-K9 Kooragang Island South DDG-K10 Kooragang Island East DDG-K11 KCT Site Wharf ^ 12 DDG-K12 KCT Site North East A 4.85 B No guideline for these sites as they are in non-residential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 13 DDG-C1 Stockton Prawner s Club Residential Note 1. Note 1: Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3 for graphs of previous 12 months results. * The result contained a large proportion of sand, with the 12 month average also impacted ** The result was heavily contaminated with bird droppings, and also contained a large proportion of sand ^ The result was heavily contaminated with bird droppings. A: 12 Month Average including results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants B: 12 Month Average excluding results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 10 of 21

217 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains large amount of local sand Contains an excess of contaminants 0 0 Figure 1: Site 1 North Stockton Dust Deposition (DDG-K1) Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay Dust Deposition (DDG-K8) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 11 of 21

218 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 3: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) Dust Deposition (DDG-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 12 of 21

219 Table 3: Results of High Volume Air Sampling Results of HVAS (µg/m³) Stage 3 Air Quality Goals (µg/m³) No. Port Waratah ID & Location Location 05-Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar-15 Max 12 Month Average 24 Hour Max Comments PM 10 8 HVAS - K3 Fern Bay Total Suspended Particulates Result Month Rolling Ave Note HVAS - K1 KCT Site HVAS - K2 Fern Bay HVAS - C1 Stockton Result This monitoring site is used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes 12 Month being located within the terminal boundary. Rolling Ave Result * Month Rolling Ave Result * Month Rolling Ave Note 1: Refer to Figures 4, 5 & 6 for graphical representation of the previous 12 months of monitoring results. * total sample time was 15.4 hours due to an electrical fault (out of 24 hours) Note 1 Note 1 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 13 of 21

220 Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 9-Jul Jul-14 2-Aug Aug Aug-14 7-Sep Sep-14 1-Oct Oct Oct-14 6-Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec-14 5-Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb-15 6-Mar Mar Mar-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay PM10 High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K3) 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 9-Jul Jul-14 2-Aug Aug Aug-14 7-Sep Sep-14 1-Oct Oct Oct-14 6-Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec-14 5-Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb-15 6-Mar Mar Mar-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 3: Site 8 Fern Bay TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K2) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 14 of 21

221 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Apr Apr Apr May May-14 3-Jun Jun Jun-14 9-Jul Jul-14 2-Aug Aug Aug-14 7-Sep Sep-14 1-Oct Oct Oct-14 6-Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec-14 5-Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb-15 6-Mar Mar Mar-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 4: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 15 of 21

222 4.5 CONDITION NO. 28 The Applicant shall prior to commencement of construction implement a noise monitoring programme in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General to confirm compliance with Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Requirement To implement a noise monitoring program to confirm compliance with Condition No. 3 (Construction Noise Limits) and Condition No. 4 (Operational Noise Limits). Purpose To ensure compliance of terminal construction work and terminal operations to specified and approved noise limits. Methodology a) Construction: Carry out noise monitoring of construction activities in accordance with the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan, with the focus on the impact of KCT on industrial and residential neighbours. b) Operations: The noise consultant will conduct on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT Plant and Equipment and use KCT operating logs and prevailing weather conditions to quantify the maximum intrusive sound pressure level (SPL) at residential locations in Fern Bay, Stockton & Mayfield. Results a) Construction: No construction activities were conducted during Q b) Operations: All operational activities for Q were within the limits and requirements identified in the consent conditions. For the location of monitoring sites refer to Figure A.7 in Appendix A. For Noise Survey results see; Tables 4 & 5 for Residential Noise Monitoring data; and, Table 6 for Industrial Boundary Noise Monitoring data. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 16 of 21

223 Table 4: Construction Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial and Residential Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results (L A10 (15 min) ) Noise Criteria* (L A10 (15 min) ) Q Q Q Q Industrial Locations IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage NC NC NC NC 65 IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities NC NC NC NC 65 IB5 Sims Metal NC NC NC NC 65 IB6 Oil Seed Processing Plant NC NC NC NC 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern NC NC NC NC 65 Residential Locations BG1 Fullerton Rd, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 47 BG3 Stockton Hospital, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 54 BG4 Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 52 BG5 Nelson Bay Rd, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 49 M3 Arthur Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 51 M5 George Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 52 NC: No construction activities during the quarter *: Noise Criteria under Neutral Atmospheric Conditions Table 5: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results in Residential Areas Location ID FN1 (BG5) FW1 (BG4) Location Description KCT Contributed Residential Noise Levels Q Q Q Q L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) A* B** A* B** A* B** A* B** Allowable Noise Level^ L A10(15 min) Bayway Village, Fern Bay <36 41 <35 41 <35 41 < Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay < FE1 Braid Road, Fern Bay <35 41 <45 41 < SW1 (BG1) Fullerton Street, Stockton <40 39 <39 39 <40 39 < SE1 Eames Road, Stockton <41 39 <38 39 <39 39 < W1 Stevenson Avenue, Mayfield West <41 28 <34 28 <35 28 < M1 Bull Street, Mayfield <39 28 <32 28 <43 28 < M4 Arthur Street, Mayfield <40 28 <33 28 <44 28 < Cnr Hargrave & Young C1 <40 28 <30 28 <40 28 < Streets, Carrington NOTE 1: A* = Estimated KCT Contribution LA10(15 min) during survey under prevailing weather conditions. B** = Maximum Intrusive Sound Pressure Level (SPL) This is the maximum SPL assuming all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously under neutral weather conditions. ^ = indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 17 of 21

224 Table 6: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results^ L A10(15 min) Q Q Q Q Noise Criteria^ L A10(15 min) MW1 Steel River Estate <60 <60 <60 <60 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern <52 <50 <49 <50 70 IB1 EDI Admin Building IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities IB4 Incitec Heron Road IB5 Sims Metal IB6 Cargill Australia MN1 OneSteel <60 <60 <60 <60 70 ^ indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions. NOTE: There have been results at IB3, i.e. Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) industrial boundary, above the 70dBA noise criteria in previous quarterly reports. Port Waratah have applied sound attenuation measures to the work areas of the KBF receptors. This is regarded as compliance with Consent Condition 4 dot point 3 and 5, as the best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise in the design and operation of the plant and equipment and in attenuating the KBF receptors. Refer to Section 6.2 in Appendix B for details of best available technology employed to minimise noise in plant and equipment and KBF sound attenuation measures. In addition a staged change out of Stage 1 and 2 rollers in the vicinity of KBF using Stage 3 quiet rollers occurred in Q reducing noise levels further. 4.6 CONDITION NO. 29 The Applicant shall prior to the commencement of dredging implement a water quality monitoring programme in the South Arm of the Hunter River upstream and downstream of the dredge sites in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General Requirement To implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Hunter River South Arm to determine background status for dredging activities. Status No dredging activities occurred during this quarter related to the Stage 3 Expansion, thus there were no requirements for water quality monitoring. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 18 of 21

225 5 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS Figure A.5: KCT Environmental Monitoring Locations Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 19 of 21

226 6 APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES 6.1 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT The noise mitigation measures that Port Waratah have implemented in the plant and equipment on site include: Development and installation of low noise idlers including: o o o o o o o Idler shell surface concentric with bearing housings therefore concentric with axis of rotation Smooth idler shell surface to reduce belt idler interaction noise Limits on roundness of idler shell surface (Total Indicated Run out TIR) Dynamic balancing of idlers after assembly Limits on idler self-noise Quality assurance testing program during manufacture to ensure idler specification is being achieved Port Waratah authorised idler specification setting out technical requirements, quality assurance testing program, acceptance criteria etc. Development and installation of low noise conveyor drives including offsite full load testing to demonstrate compliance with specification Random return idler spacing to control belt flapping which causes low frequency structure borne noise Soft mounted noise barriers on conveyors Enclosed conveyor gantries Conveyor equipment inspections to replace worn idlers Development and installation of phase control on vibratory feeders to control low frequency noise Development and installation of start-up and travel alarms with variable frequency and volume The conveyor design, conveyor idlers and conveyor drives are regarded as best available technology, which can be demonstrated by the measured sound power levels (SWL) of the as installed and operating equipment detailed in Table A.7. Table A.7: Comparison of Measured Sound Power Levels Item Standard Specification Low Noise Specification Transfer Conveyors 110 dba per 100 metres 100 dba per 100 metres Conveyor Drives 115 to 118 dba gearbox noise dominant 100 dba with reduced gearbox noise The cost to install the best available low noise technology is estimated to be: an additional 25% for Low Noise Conveyors; and, an additional 45% for Low Noise Conveyor Drives Port Waratah has led the way in developing the low noise conveyor and drive technology. When planning to construct the Stage 3 Expansion, the noise modelling results indicated that the noise limits may be exceeded if the existing technology was installed. Therefore improved and more reliable technology had to be sought so Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 20 of 21

227 that KCT could operate with greater certainty and in compliance with the consent condition noise requirements. A survey of the best available technology for conveyor drives and idlers revealed that a new standard was required. Port Waratah realised that if that was to be achieved then they would have to take the initiative and lead the way. After much research of what makes noise, new plant and equipment specifications were released with SWL limits as part of the acceptance criteria. When the new specifications were released, the suppliers response was to advise that they were unachievable. However, Port Waratah supported those manufactures that were willing to try and develop equipment to meet the new criteria in the specifications. The success of this work is demonstrated with installed and measured SWL as detailed in Table A KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES The Industrial Boundary Noise monitoring conducted in the past has shown the noise levels at Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) boundary to be up to 3 dba in excess of 70 dba, however, Consent Condition 4 does allow for the 70 dba to be exceeded...in circumstances where best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise emissions. Port Waratah considers that in the past, best available technology has been employed to minimise noise emissions and therefore interpreted the results as compliant. A review of the available technology and the potential application to the KBF noise levels was undertaken by a consultant commissioned by Port Waratah which indicated a potential method of addressing this issue. In this regard, Port Waratah replaced 88 idlers to new low noise idlers in proximity to KBF. A noise assessment carried out by an acoustical consultant on March 12, 2009, following the idler replacement, has indicated that noise levels at KBF have dropped from dba to 71 dba following the replacement of 88 idlers in proximity to the KBF Administration Building. The consultant has recommended that given the potential for conveyor noise to increase over time, and the substantial reduction in noise levels at KBF following this campaign of idler replacements, further idler replacements may be deemed necessary, via a staged program to suit operations and maintenance programs. Since the noise assessment on March 12, 2009, four monitoring assessments have indicated noise levels at KBF to be 70dBA, thus not exceeding the 70dBA noise criteria. Noise levels will continue to be monitored at KBF with feasible noise mitigation measures implemented where deemed necessary. In regards to the internal noise relevant to the offices at KBF, Port Waratah has undertaken works in the past to address any immediate noise emissions. In 1998, following the completion of the Stage 2 scope of work for the expansion of KCT, which included an additional shipping conveyor past the KBF offices, the KBF manager identified that the noise levels inside their offices were unacceptable when both shipping conveyors where operating. Port Waratah carried out both attended and unattended logging of noise and found the internal noise level to be unacceptably high for an office environment. The measured internal sound pressure level (SPL) was around 53 dba. As Port Waratah did not have low noise options available then it was decided to install sound attenuation to the KBF office in the form of: Double glazing to the windows, Leaded vinyl in the ceiling cavity of the building An air lock entry to the building This reduced the SPL in the office to around 46 dba, which is acceptable for an office environment and acceptable to KBF. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for January, February & March 2015 (Q1 2015) Page 21 of 21

228 PORT WARATAH KOORAGANG STAGE 3 EXPANSION QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS REPORT FOR APRIL, MAY & JUNE 2015 (Q2 2015) For more info visit pwcs.com.au or ring (02)

229 DOCUMENT CONTROL Uncontrolled if printed Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: T. Thompson E. Simic E. Simic Revision: 1 Date: 28 th July 2015 Doc Id: Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 2 of 20

230 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION MONITORING RESULTS CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO CONDITION NO APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES PLANT AND EQUIPMENT KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 3 of 20

231 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) is required under its conditions of consent for the Stage 3 Expansion (DA35/96, Condition 30) to prepare a quarterly report detailing all monitoring results arising from the implementation of consent conditions which require the carrying out of monitoring programs. This report, for the quarterly period of April, May and June 2015 (Q2 2015), reports the results of all monitoring required by consent conditions, being consent conditions 7, 11, 22, 27, 28 and 29. Port Waratah progressively implemented the Stage 3 Expansion scope of work that included construction and operational activities. The certification statement for the most recently completed component of the Stage 3 Expansion, 3Exp, was submitted and acknowledged by the NSW Department of Planning on 6 th October The monitoring results show that all activities are within the requirements set down in the conditions of consent. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. However, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 2 BACKGROUND Port Waratah Coal Services Limited (Port Waratah) owns and operates two coal loading terminals in the Port of Newcastle, being the Carrington Coal Terminal (CCT) and the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT). The Carrington Coal Terminal commenced operation in 1975 and is not the subject of this report. The Minister for Public Works granted KCT approval for Stages 1 and 2 in The terminal has been progressively developed since its commencement with Stage 2 being completed in An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT was prepared in A development application (DA 35/96) was submitted to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 34 with consent being granted in late 1996 subject to 43 Conditions of Consent. This consent was challenged through the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (LEC). The LEC ruling subsequently confirmed consent on 23rd July The objector then lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court. Legislation by the NSW State Government confirmed consent in late 1997 subject to the original 43 conditions imposed by the Minister. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 4 of 20

232 Port Waratah has completed the KCT Stage 3 Expansion scope of work. This has included: the construction of a third and fourth shiploading berth and third shiploader navigational dredging of the Hunter River South Arm sufficient for a third and fourth berth the construction of a third receival and shipping stream the construction of an additional stackers and associated conveyors additional stockpile capacity and associated conveyors. the construction of an additional reclaimer. On 23 rd April 2007, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) granted approval for the further expansion of the KCT through Project Application 06_0189. Further to this, on 31 st May 2010, DoP approved a modification to the 2007 Approval (06_0189 MOD 1) to accommodate KCT s Stage 4 scope of works. This approval was again approved for modification on 5 th April 2012 by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I, formerly DoP) to accommodate rail modifications associated with the Stage 4 scope of works (06_0189 MOD 2), and modified again on 26 th November 2012 (06_0189 MOD 3) to update the schedule of lands. This is considered to be the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Approval. Compliance with the consent conditions for the KCT 120Mtpa Modified Project Approval is reported separately as required by the approval, however as operational components constructed under DA 35/96 and PA 06_0189 MOD 3, this monitoring report includes noise monitoring results relevant to both approvals. On 21 st April 2012, annual throughput at the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) exceeded 77 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for the first time. This occurrence transfers the operational components of the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) to the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval (06_0189 MOD 3). Due to the commencement of operations under the KCT 120Mtpa Project Approval, Port Waratah believes the requirements under the Stage 3 Consent (DA 35/96) for quarterly (condition 30) and annual (condition 31) reporting of monitoring results have been completed. At present, Port Waratah remains obliged to submit quarterly monitoring results reports until the Department provides written acknowledgement that all requirements of these two conditions have been completed. 3 INTRODUCTION The consent given for the Stage 3 Expansion of KCT included 43 conditions of consent, some of which require a number of monitoring programs to be implemented for both construction and operational activities. Under consent condition No. 30, Port Waratah is obligated as follows: All monitoring results arising from these conditions of consent shall be included in Quarterly Reports and submitted to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC. NOTE: Following changes in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 to the structure of the NSW Government ministries, the separate Quarterly Reports previously sent to the EPA, NPWS and DLWC are now reduced to one copy and sent to the Newcastle Office of the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 5 of 20

233 4 MONITORING RESULTS Of the 43 consent conditions approved under DA 35/96, the following have monitoring requirements. Following the listed conditions are details of Port Waratah s implementation and compliance with the specific condition. 4.1 CONDITION NO. 7 A comprehensive Noise Study of the existing and Stage 3 Development in consultation with the EPA and to the satisfaction of the Director-General and the EPA. The study shall include, but not be limited to: Requirements On-going monitoring at the boundary of the property; and Incorporation of rail noise near the terminal into noise modelling On-going acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Kooragang Coal Terminal (KCT) property is required. Purpose To establish a database of noise levels for reference and comparison. Methodology An independent noise consultant conducts on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT plant and equipment and uses actual KCT operating logs to quantify the on-site operating sound power levels (SWL s) throughout the quarter. Results Table 1 presents the calculated maximum and operating on-site SWL s for the previous 12 months. Table 1: Measured On-Site Sound Power Levels at KCT Month Site Maximum SWL 1 Site Maximum Site Mean Operating Operating SWL 2 SWL 3 July dba 132 dba 131 dba August dba 132 dba 130 dba September dba 132 dba 130 dba October dba 132 dba 131 dba November dba 132 dba 131 dba December dba 132 dba 131 dba January dba 132 dba 131 dba February dba 132 dba 131 dba March dba 132 dba 131 dba April dba 132 dba 129 dba May dba 132 dba 130 dba June dba 132 dba 131 dba Note 1: Site Maximum SWL This is the maximum sound power level (SWL) assuming that all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously (in practice this would rarely occur). Note 2: Site Maximum Operating SWL This is the typical maximum SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the plant and equipment run-time derived from the KCT operating log. Note 3: Site Mean Operating SWL This is the logarithmic mean SWL that actually occurred during the monitoring period. This value is dependent on the same factors that determined the Site Maximum Operating SWL. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 6 of 20

234 4.2 CONDITION NO. 11 An Acid Sulphate Testing Programme in consultation with DLWC and to the satisfaction of the Director General. The programme shall include but not be limited to testing for potential acid sulphate soil material in representative samples of fines and sands from all proposed dredging sites and the existing site ponds. Testing shall include the use of the Potential Acidity Test. In the event that testing confirms the presence of acid sulphate soil material, an Acid Sulphate Control Plan be developed in conjunction with DLWC to the satisfaction of the Director General. Requirement Implementation of a program to test for the potential of acid sulphate soil in regards to the dredge material and existing ponds. Status No dredging or excavation activities have occurred under the Stage 3 (DA 35/96) scope of works during this quarter. 4.3 CONDITION NO. 22 The Applicant shall in consultation with Freight Rail develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of the Kooragang Coal Terminal s rail unloading operations on delays to trains along the delivery route. Requirement To develop and implement a procedure to monitor and report on the performance of rail unloading operations on coal train movements along the delivery route. Purpose To ensure that rail unloading operations at the terminal are organised and planned with a focus on limiting the impacts of rail movement on route to the terminal. Methodology Establish appropriate plans, studies, agreements and initiatives to meet the requirements. Results The establishment and progression of the initiatives and their status are listed as follows: The Hunter Valley Coal Chain capacity plan is being implemented. Modelling work is complete for the development of a fully integrated 10 Year Capacity Master Plan for the coal chain. Port Waratah has entered into 10 year long term take-or-pay contracts with Producers. A capital investment program continues being developed and implemented to meet these contracted volumes. Maintenance outages between the infrastructure and asset owners are coordinated and underway. The Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator (HVCCC) was incorporated in 2009 with all Service Providers and Hunter Valley Coal Chain Producers being members. The HVCCC utilise the Integrated Planning System (IPS) as a common scheduling tool for all Members. A set of procedures for the operatives of the Terminal loops including Port Waratah, ARTC, and Rolling Stock Operators have been developed and are being utilised. Procedures are reviewed and updated as required. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 7 of 20

235 4.4 CONDITION NO. 27 The Applicant shall within three months of the date of this consent, commence TSP and dust deposition monitoring as required by Condition 9 in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General. Requirement Commence monitoring of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and dust deposition as required by Condition No. 9. Purpose To monitor air quality and provide data for reference to specified guidelines. Methodology Establishment of a monitoring program to the satisfaction of the EPA and in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 9. Obtaining data from the monitoring program for Dust Deposition, Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Results Review of data against specified goals. All monitoring results in residential areas were generally within the air quality goals specified under condition 6 of DA 35/96. Deposited Dust results for North Stockton have been heavily influenced by an increase in localised sand received at this location. Monitoring site locations are shown in Appendix A - Figure A.7 Refer to the following tables and figures for quarterly and 12 monthly results: Dust Deposition Data: Table 2 and Figure 1, Figure 2, & Figure 3 PM10 Data: Table 3 and Figure 4 TSP Data: Table 3 and Figure 5 & Figure 6 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 8 of 20

236 Table 2: Results of Dust Deposition Monitoring No. Port Waratah ID Total Insoluble Solids (g/m²/month) Location Apr 2015 May 2015 Jun DDG-K1 North Stockton Month Ave 6.94 A 1.28 C 3 DDG-K3 KCT Site West DDG-K4 KCT Site South DDG-K5 KCT Site West 5.0^ A 1.63 B 6 DDG-K6 KCT Site North DDG-K7 Kooragang Island East A 2.65 D Stage 3 Residential Guideline (g/m²/month) Comments 4.0 Residential Note 1. No guideline for these sites as they are in non-residential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 8 DDG-K8 Fern Bay Residential Note 1. 9 DDG-K9 Kooragang Island South DDG-K10 Kooragang Island East NR DDG-K11 KCT Site Wharf 3.5^ ^ 5.96 A 5.43 B 12 DDG-K12 KCT Site North East No guideline for these sites as they are in non-residential areas, i.e. industrial zoning These monitoring sites are used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes being located within and in close proximity to the terminal boundaries 13 DDG-C1 Stockton Prawner s Club Residential Note 1. Note 1: Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3 for graphs of previous 12 months results. ^ The result was heavily contaminated with bird droppings. A: 12 Month Average including results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants B: 12 Month Average excluding results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants C: 12 Month Average excluding results identified by the laboratory containing an excess of contaminants, and results containing an excess of local sand D: 12 Month Average excluding results containing an excess of storm debris NR: DDG-K10 was stolen during the April 2015 sampling period, thus no result was available. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 9 of 20

237 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains large amount of local sand Contains an excess of contaminants 0 0 Figure 1: Site 1 North Stockton Dust Deposition (DDG-K1) Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 2: Site 8 Fern Bay Dust Deposition (DDG-K8) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 10 of 20

238 Deposited Dust (g/m²/month Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Ash Combustible Matter Total Insoluble Solids Month Average (Total Dust) Stage 3 Goal (Annual Average) Contains an excess of contaminants Figure 3: Site 13 South Stockton (Prawner s Club) Dust Deposition (DDG-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 11 of 20

239 Table 3: Results of High Volume Air Sampling Results of HVAS (µg/m³) Stage 3 Air Quality Goals (µg/m³) No. Port Waratah ID & Location Location 05-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May May May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun-15 Max 12 Month Average 24 Hour Max Comments PM 10 8 HVAS - K3 Fern Bay Total Suspended Particulates Result Month Rolling Ave Note HVAS - K1 KCT Site HVAS - K2 Fern Bay HVAS - C1 Stockton Result This monitoring site is used for Port Waratah environmental management purposes 12 Month being located within the terminal boundary. Rolling Ave Result Month Rolling Ave Result * --* Month Rolling Ave Note 1: Refer to Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 for graphical representation of the previous 12 months of monitoring results. * No result due to damage sustained in a severe storm event, which required off-site repairs. Note 1 Note 1 Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 12 of 20

240 Suspended Particulates <10µm (μg/m³) Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-15 4-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-15 5-Apr Apr Apr May May-15 4-Jun Jun Jun-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Figure 4: Site 8 Fern Bay PM10 High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K3) 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-15 4-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-15 5-Apr Apr Apr May May-15 4-Jun Jun Jun-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 5: Site 8 Fern Bay TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-K2) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 13 of 20

241 300 Total Suspended Particulates (μg/m³) Jul Jul Jul-14 8-Aug Aug-14 1-Sep Sep Sep-14 7-Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov-14 6-Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan-15 4-Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar-15 5-Apr Apr Apr May May-15 4-Jun Jun Jun-15 24hr Average 12 Month Average Stage 3 Annual Average Goal Stage 3 24hr Ave Goal Figure 6: Site 13 - South Stockton (Prawner's Club) TSP High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS-C1) Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 14 of 20

242 4.5 CONDITION NO. 28 The Applicant shall prior to commencement of construction implement a noise monitoring programme in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General to confirm compliance with Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Requirement To implement a noise monitoring program to confirm compliance with Condition No. 3 (Construction Noise Limits) and Condition No. 4 (Operational Noise Limits). Purpose To ensure compliance of terminal construction work and terminal operations to specified and approved noise limits. Methodology Results a) Construction: Carry out noise monitoring of construction activities in accordance with the Construction Noise Monitoring Plan, with the focus on the impact of KCT on industrial and residential neighbours. b) Operations: The noise consultant will conduct on-site operator-attended noise monitoring on selected KCT Plant and Equipment and use KCT operating logs and prevailing weather conditions to quantify the maximum intrusive sound pressure level (SPL) at residential locations in Fern Bay, Stockton & Mayfield. a) Construction: No construction activities were conducted during Q b) Operations: All operational activities for Q were within the limits and requirements identified in the consent conditions. For the location of monitoring sites refer to Figure A.7 in Appendix A. For Noise Survey results see; Table 4 and Table 5 for Residential Noise Monitoring data; and, Table 6 for Industrial Boundary Noise Monitoring data. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 15 of 20

243 Table 4: Construction Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial and Residential Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results (L A10 (15 min) ) Noise Criteria* (L A10 (15 min) ) Q Q Q Q Industrial Locations IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage NC NC NC NC 65 IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities NC NC NC NC 65 IB5 Sims Metal NC NC NC NC 65 IB6 Oil Seed Processing Plant NC NC NC NC 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern NC NC NC NC 65 Residential Locations BG1 Fullerton Rd, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 47 BG3 Stockton Hospital, North Stockton NC NC NC NC 54 BG4 Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 52 BG5 Nelson Bay Rd, Fern Bay NC NC NC NC 49 M3 Arthur Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 51 M5 George Street, Mayfield NC NC NC NC 52 NC: No construction activities during the quarter *: Noise Criteria under Neutral Atmospheric Conditions Table 5: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results in Residential Areas Location ID FN1 (BG5) FW1 (BG4) Location Description KCT Contributed Residential Noise Levels Q Q Q Q L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) L A10(15 min) A* B** A* B** A* B** A* B** Allowable Noise Level^ L A10(15 min) Bayway Village, Fern Bay <35 41 <35 41 <29 41 < Fullerton Lane, Fern Bay FE1 Braid Road, Fern Bay <35 41 <45 41 <30 41 < SW1 (BG1) Fullerton Street, Stockton <39 39 <40 39 <33 39 < SE1 Eames Road, Stockton <38 39 <39 39 <32 39 < W1 Stevenson Avenue, Mayfield West <34 28 <35 28 <34 28 < M1 Bull Street, Mayfield <32 28 <43 28 <39 28 < M4 Arthur Street, Mayfield <33 28 <44 28 <40 28 < Cnr Hargrave & Young C1 <30 28 <40 28 <35 28 < Streets, Carrington NOTE 1: A* = Estimated KCT Contribution LA10(15 min) during survey under prevailing weather conditions. B** = Maximum Intrusive Sound Pressure Level (SPL) This is the maximum SPL assuming all plant and equipment is operating simultaneously under neutral weather conditions. ^ = indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 16 of 20

244 Table 6: Operational Activity Noise Monitoring Results at Industrial Boundaries Location ID Location Description Survey Results^ L A10(15 min) Q Q Q Q Noise Criteria^ L A10(15 min) MW1 Steel River Estate <60 <60 <60 <60 65 KI1 Blue Circle Southern <50 <49 < IB1 EDI Admin Building IB2 Mountain Bulk Haulage IB3 Kooragang Bulk Facilities IB4 Incitec Heron Road IB5 Sims Metal IB6 Cargill Australia MN1 OneSteel <60 <60 <60 <60 70 ^ indicates noise criteria for Stage under neutral atmospheric conditions. NOTE: There have been results at IB3, i.e. Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) industrial boundary, above the 70dBA noise criteria in previous quarterly reports. Port Waratah have applied sound attenuation measures to the work areas of the KBF receptors. This is regarded as compliance with Consent Condition 4 dot point 3 and 5, as the best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise in the design and operation of the plant and equipment and in attenuating the KBF receptors. Refer to Section 6.2 in Appendix B for details of best available technology employed to minimise noise in plant and equipment and KBF sound attenuation measures. In addition a staged change out of Stage 1 and 2 rollers in the vicinity of KBF using Stage 3 quiet rollers occurred in Q reducing noise levels further. 4.6 CONDITION NO. 29 The Applicant shall prior to the commencement of dredging implement a water quality monitoring programme in the South Arm of the Hunter River upstream and downstream of the dredge sites in consultation with the EPA to the satisfaction of the Director-General Requirement To implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Hunter River South Arm to determine background status for dredging activities. Status No dredging activities occurred during this quarter related to the Stage 3 Expansion, thus there were no requirements for water quality monitoring. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 17 of 20

245 5 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LOCATIONS Figure A.7: KCT Environmental Monitoring Locations Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 18 of 20

246 6 APPENDIX B: NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES 6.1 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT The noise mitigation measures that Port Waratah have implemented in the plant and equipment on site include: Development and installation of low noise idlers including: o o o o o o o Idler shell surface concentric with bearing housings therefore concentric with axis of rotation Smooth idler shell surface to reduce belt idler interaction noise Limits on roundness of idler shell surface (Total Indicated Run out TIR) Dynamic balancing of idlers after assembly Limits on idler self-noise Quality assurance testing program during manufacture to ensure idler specification is being achieved Port Waratah authorised idler specification setting out technical requirements, quality assurance testing program, acceptance criteria etc. Development and installation of low noise conveyor drives including offsite full load testing to demonstrate compliance with specification Random return idler spacing to control belt flapping which causes low frequency structure borne noise Soft mounted noise barriers on conveyors Enclosed conveyor gantries Conveyor equipment inspections to replace worn idlers Development and installation of phase control on vibratory feeders to control low frequency noise Development and installation of start-up and travel alarms with variable frequency and volume The conveyor design, conveyor idlers and conveyor drives are regarded as best available technology, which can be demonstrated by the measured sound power levels (SWL) of the as installed and operating equipment detailed in Table A.7. Table A.7: Comparison of Measured Sound Power Levels Item Standard Specification Low Noise Specification Transfer Conveyors 110 dba per 100 metres 100 dba per 100 metres Conveyor Drives 115 to 118 dba gearbox noise dominant 100 dba with reduced gearbox noise The cost to install the best available low noise technology is estimated to be: an additional 25% for Low Noise Conveyors; and, an additional 45% for Low Noise Conveyor Drives Port Waratah has led the way in developing the low noise conveyor and drive technology. When planning to construct the Stage 3 Expansion, the noise modelling results indicated that the noise limits may be exceeded if the existing technology was installed. Therefore improved and more reliable technology had to be sought so that KCT could operate with greater certainty and in compliance with the consent condition noise requirements. A survey of the best available technology for conveyor drives and idlers revealed that a new standard was required. Port Waratah realised that if that was to be achieved then they would have to take the initiative and lead the way. After much research of what makes noise, new plant and equipment specifications were released with SWL limits as part of the acceptance criteria. When the new specifications were released, the suppliers response was to advise that they were unachievable. However, Port Waratah supported those manufactures that were willing to try and develop equipment to meet the new criteria in the specifications. The success of this work is demonstrated with installed and measured SWL as detailed in Table A.7. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 19 of 20

247 6.2 KOORAGANG BULK FACILITIES The Industrial Boundary Noise monitoring conducted in the past has shown the noise levels at Kooragang Bulk Facilities (KBF) boundary to be up to 3 dba in excess of 70 dba, however, Consent Condition 4 does allow for the 70 dba to be exceeded...in circumstances where best technology that is economically available has been employed to minimise noise emissions. Port Waratah considers that in the past, best available technology has been employed to minimise noise emissions and therefore interpreted the results as compliant. A review of the available technology and the potential application to the KBF noise levels was undertaken by a consultant commissioned by Port Waratah which indicated a potential method of addressing this issue. In this regard, Port Waratah replaced 88 idlers to new low noise idlers in proximity to KBF. A noise assessment carried out by an acoustical consultant on March 12, 2009, following the idler replacement, has indicated that noise levels at KBF have dropped from dba to 71 dba following the replacement of 88 idlers in proximity to the KBF Administration Building. The consultant has recommended that given the potential for conveyor noise to increase over time, and the substantial reduction in noise levels at KBF following this campaign of idler replacements, further idler replacements may be deemed necessary, via a staged program to suit operations and maintenance programs. Since the noise assessment on March 12, 2009, four monitoring assessments have indicated noise levels at KBF to be 70dBA, thus not exceeding the 70dBA noise criteria. Noise levels will continue to be monitored at KBF with feasible noise mitigation measures implemented where deemed necessary. In regards to the internal noise relevant to the offices at KBF, Port Waratah has undertaken works in the past to address any immediate noise emissions. In 1998, following the completion of the Stage 2 scope of work for the expansion of KCT, which included an additional shipping conveyor past the KBF offices, the KBF manager identified that the noise levels inside their offices were unacceptable when both shipping conveyors where operating. Port Waratah carried out both attended and unattended logging of noise and found the internal noise level to be unacceptably high for an office environment. The measured internal sound pressure level (SPL) was around 53 dba. As Port Waratah did not have low noise options available then it was decided to install sound attenuation to the KBF office in the form of: Double glazing to the windows, Leaded vinyl in the ceiling cavity of the building An air lock entry to the building This reduced the SPL in the office to around 46 dba, which is acceptable for an office environment and acceptable to KBF. Quarterly Monitoring Results Report for April, May & June 2015 (Q2 2015) Page 20 of 20

248 APPENDIX E SITE LAYOUT AND PHOTOS /01/01

249

250 Legend Photo Locations?! Photo 3?! Photo 4?! Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7?!?! Photo 2?! 0?! Photo / Metres Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: GDA 1994 Units: Meter Whilst every care is taken by URS to ensure the accuracy of the digital data, URS makes no representation or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness, suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which may be incurred as a result of data being inaccurate in any way for any reason. Electronic files are provided for information only. The data in these files is not controlled or subject to automatic updates for users outside of URS. PATH: T:\JOBS\ \Workspaces\Working\ _Site Map and P FILE NO: _Site Map and Photos3 DRAWN: Photo 1 APPROVED: XX DATE: 21/08/2015 PORT WARATAH COAL SERVICES (PWCS)?! This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. STB 2015 COMPLIANCE AUDIT SITE MAP AND SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS Photo 10 Photo 9 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Figure: Rev. A E1 A3