OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
198
7.8
AIR QUALITY (DUST)
7.8.1
Overview
Dust is a common feature through much of the Proposal Area due to the predominant rural and
pastoral landuses in the surrounding area. Dust generated in these areas is currently restricted to
localised, short‐term events caused by the movement of cattle, and vehicle movements on unsealed
roads. In addition, large scale episodic dust events caused by general dust lift during windy
conditions occur occasionally and may lead to exceedances of NEPM levels.
Within freehold areas, dust is also generated from erosion processes due to agricultural activities
such as ploughing prior to seeding and the summer grazing of stock (DAFWA, 2007).
7.8.2
Key statutory requirements, environmental policy and guidance
7.8.2.1
EPA Objectives
The EPA objective for the management of air quality is to ensure that emissions do not adversely
affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting
statutory requirements and acceptable standards.
7.8.2.2
EPA statements and guidelines
EPA Guidance Statement No. 3 ‐ Separation Distances Between Industrial and Sensitive Land
Uses (EPA, 2005);
EPA Guidance Statement No. 15 ‐ Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Gas Turbines (EPA,
2000);
EPA Guidance Statement No. 18 ‐ Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land Development
Sites (EPA, 2000); and
EPA Guidance Statement No. 33 ‐ Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development
(EPA, 2005).
7.8.2.3
Applicable Legislation and Policy
EP Act and subsidiary regulations;
PM
10
– National Environmental Pollution Council (NEPC, 2007) Standard;
Total Suspended Particles (TSP) – Kwinana Environmental Protection Policy (Area C
Standard, EPA 1992); and
Dust deposition – NSW EPA (2005) Standard.
National Environmental Protection Measure
In June 1998 a NEPM for Ambient Air Quality was endorsed by the National Environment Protection
Council (NEPC). The desired environmental outcome of this Measure is ambient air quality that
allows for the adequate protection of human health and well being (NEPC 1998). The measure
included standards for air quality, including for particulates as PM
10
. In 2003, the NEPM was
amended to include advisory reporting standards for particles as PM
2.5
(NEPC 2003).
The NEPM standards and goals for particulates are shown in Table 7‐25.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
199
Table 7‐25 NEPM for ambient air quality
Pollutant
Averaging period
Maximum concentration
Maximum allowable
exceedences
Standards and goal for pollutants other than particulates as PM
2.5
Particles as PM
10
1 day
50 µg/m
3
5 days a year
Advisory reporting standards and goal for particulates as PM
2.5
Particles as PM
2.5
1 day
25 µg/m
3
Goal is to gather sufficient data
nationally to facilitate a review
of Advisory Reporting
Standards
Other applicable guidelines and standards include:
Land development sites and impact on air quality – A guideline for the prevention of dust
and smoke pollution from land development sites in WA (DEC, 1996);
Dust Control; Best Practice in Environmental Management Series (Environment Australia
1998b);
Air Quality and Air Pollution Modelling Guidance Notes (DEC, 2000);
A guideline for the development and implementation of a dust management plan (Draft,
DEC 2008); and
National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPC, 2003).
7.8.3
Aspects and Impacts
Proposal activities or areas that may result in dust emissions include:
exposed surfaces such as cleared land and construction sites;
construction earthworks, haulage and topsoil stripping and stockpiling;
blasting and crushing of rock from quarries and borrow areas;
vehicle movements on unpaved roads; and
ore transport.
All of these aspects may lead to increased levels of dust in the atmosphere, and entering the
surrounding environment, both human and natural.
7.8.4
Dust Impact Assessment
Dust emissions are expected to be primarily generated during construction of the Proposal. There
may be some minor dust emissions during operation due to vehicle movements and ore transport;
however these events will be intermittent and are unlikely to significantly contribute to dust levels in
the area.
Best practice dust controls (such as water trucks, chemical polymers (if required), vehicle speed
limits, progressive clearing and rehabilitation etc) will ensure that dust emissions are minimised and
avoided. Speed limits will be set and enforced and vehicle movements will be restricted to
designated access tracks.
In addition the construction face will be constantly moving, meaning that impacts from dust on the
surrounding environment will generally be short‐term in nature. Progressive and staged clearing will
ensure the number of open areas is limited at any one time and visual dust monitoring will be
implemented during both construction and operation phases, to ensure fugitive emissions are
compliant.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
200
In accordance with contractual arrangements with its clients, all iron ore products transported by
OPR along the rail line will have a specified moisture content. This requirement is expected to
reduce dust emissions such that no further dust mitigation will be required for rail transport of ore.
Furthermore, due to the considerable separation distance between the rail alignment and sensitive
receptors it is unlikely that complaints from the community will be raised in relation to potential dust
emissions. Nevertheless, in the unlikely circumstance that dust emissions from wagons becomes an
issue, OPR will investigate and implement suitable contingency actions that may include the use of
covers, surface sprays or chemical sealants.
7.8.5
Proposed Mitigation and Management Measures
7.8.5.1
Performance Management
OPR has developed environmental management objectives, targets and performance indicators for
air quality (Table 7‐26).
Table 7‐26 Air quality management objectives, targets and performance indicators
Management Objective
Target
Performance Indicators
Prevent dust impacts on human
population, recreation areas, and
surrounding habitats during construction.
No impacts to residential and recreation
areas.
Dust monitoring
Complaints Register
Prevent dust impacts on human
population, recreation areas, and
surrounding habitats during construction
No dust complaints attributable to rail
construction from nearby residents or
local recreational areas
Dust monitoring
Complaints received and registered
7.8.5.2
Management Strategies
Table 7‐27 outlines the proposed management strategies for air quality both during construction and
operation of the Proposal.
Table 7‐27 Proposed air quality management strategies
Management Strategies
Relevant EMP
Phase
Responsible Persons
Perform visual dust monitoring of construction and operations areas to
ensure that fugitive emissions meet required standards. Dust
management will include the following measures:
progressive and staged clearing of vegetation to limit the
number of open areas;
restrict vehicle movements to designated access tracks;
revegetate cleared areas no longer being used;
surface with gravel/lump product;
apply
water
sprays;
use chemical polymers to stabilise surfaces;
set and enforce vehicle speed limits;
incident reporting and follow up system; and
continuous
improvement.
Chemical polymers may also be used to stabilise surfaces if required.
Air Quality
Management
Plan (AQMP)
Construction
& Operation
Construction Manager,
Operations Manager
Control occupational dust levels in accordance with the requirements of
the Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations (1995) and Occupational
Health and Safety Act (1984)
AQMP
Construction
& Operation
Construction Manager,
Operations Manager
Prepare and implement an AQMP that includes objectives, targets, and
detailed management actions to minimise dust emissions at source,
monitoring, incident management, and contingency measures
AQMP
Construction
& Operation
Environment Manager,
Construction Manager,
Operations Manager
7.8.6
Predicted Outcome
Dust emissions are expected at low levels during both construction and operational phases of the
Proposal. Emissions from construction will be short‐term and subject to best practice dust controls.
Emissions from operations will be longer term but are expected to be insignificant.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
201
7.9
SOIL QUALITY
7.9.1
Overview
Soil quality is one of the most significant factors in farming practice and is central to agricultural
productivity.
The Proposal Area intersects 30 land systems and 51 soil landscape systems. The dominant soil types
are shallow loams with red‐brown hardpan. There are two major geological terrains; the northern
Perth Basin and the Yilgarn Craton.
Soils in the pastoral area are relatively undisturbed – they may have been influenced by broad scale
grazing and isolated disturbance. In the agricultural area the soils have been subject to clearing,
more intensive grazing and cropping. The areas of most productive farmland are based on loamy
soils with good structure and water holding characteristics. Large areas of sandy soils have also been
cleared for agriculture. The western portion of the agricultural area supports more reliable cropping
and grazing activities. The intensity of this activity can influence soil structure. The eastern portion
tends to be cropped opportunistically based on seasonal conditions and soil structure tends to reflect
natural soil conditions rather than soil management practices.
Weeds are a consideration for environmental management in agricultural areas, having the potential
to be spread through natural vectors as well as agricultural practice and vehicle and material
movements. Weeds can have impacts on farm practice as well as on the natural environment. OPR
has prepared a weed map on the basis of vegetation and flora survey work that shows that the
freehold section of the Proposal Area has comparatively heavy weed burdens consistent with the
more intensive agricultural activity. A further consideration in the freehold area is the presence of
crop diseases. Two key crop diseases, rust (in wheat) and anthracnose (in lupins), have been
identified as being potentially present within the Proposal Area and able to be transported by
vehicles (Planfarm, 2010).
Disturbance of Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) can lead to acid drainage water that can have both on‐site
and off‐site impacts. No prior ASS risk mapping had been completed for the Proposal Area. A
desktop review by GHD (2010) utilised geological information to assess ASS risk. The study
concluded that there is a low to moderate risk of ASS prevalent along the majority of the main
alignment. High risk areas are predominantly associated with alluvium and isolated salt pans
occurring at several locations generally towards the eastern end of the Proposal Area.
The broad scale rural usage of the area and limited quantities of hazardous materials means that the
risk of soil contamination is low, with isolated and small scale contamination from diesel and
chemicals possible. Soils can also be influenced by farming and salinisation of soils from agricultural
clearing and rising water tables is well documented. Farm management practices can also influence
soil acidity.
Throughout the Proposal Area there is evidence of minor soil erosion from both water and wind.
7.9.2
Key statutory requirements, environmental policy and guidance
7.9.2.1
EPA Objectives
The EPA objectives for the management of soil quality are:
to ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare
and amenity of
people
and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable
standards; and
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
202
to maintain the integrity, ecological functions and environmental values of the soil and
landform.
7.9.2.2
EPA statements and guidelines
EPA Guidance Statement No. 4 ‐ Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems;
EPA Position Statement No. 5 ‐ Protection and Ecological Sustainability of the Rangelands in
Western Australia;
EPA Position Statement No. 8 ‐ Environmental Protection in Natural Resource Management;
and
EPA Guidance No. 33 ‐ Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development (EPA, 2005).
EPA Guidance Statement No. 4
EPA Guidance Statement No. 4 ‐ Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems (EPA 2006), recognises that
a key aim of rehabilitation is to ensure the long‐term stability of soils, landforms, and hydrology
required for the sustainability of sites. When discussing abiotic factors, the Guidance Statement
describes the maintenance of soil properties as being a key aspect of rehabilitation to ensure
vegetation establishment and resistance to erosion. It also states that effective topsoil and subsoil
management is essential to ensure adequate plant growth and normal root distribution patterns.
EPA Position Statement No. 5
EPA Position Statement No. 5 ‐ Environmental Protection and Ecological Sustainability of the
Rangelands in Western Australia (EPA 2004) outlines the environmental attributes and values of
rangelands, their pressures and environmental condition, management issues, principles and
objectives for the environmental protection and ecological sustainability of the rangelands and
management responses required. This Position Statement identifies grazing, horticulture (in the
floodplains), fire, feral animals and weeds, mining and climate change as pressures on the rangeland
environment.
EPA Position Statement No. 8
EPA Position Statement No. 8 ‐ Environmental Protection in Natural Resource Management (EPA
2005) outlines the EPA’s role in natural resource management with respect to evaluating
environmental performance. The EPA has been given the task of environmental performance
evaluation of natural resource management. This task will link closely with WA’s State of the
Environment Reporting Program.
7.9.2.3
Applicable Legislation and Policy
The following policy and guidelines are also relevant to soil as an environmental factor:
Landform Design for Rehabilitation (Environment Australia, 1998);
Identification and Investigation of Acid Sulfate Soils (DEC, 2004);
General Guidance on Managing Acid Sulfate Soils (DEC, 2003);
Planning Bulletin No. 64 ‐ Acid Sulfate Soils (WAPC, 2004); and
Agriculture and Related Resources Act 1976.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
203
Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Bulletin No. 64
The WAPC Planning Bulletin No. 64 ‐ Acid Sulphate Soils (WAPC 2003b), provides advice on matters
that should be taken into account in the development of lands that contain ASS. The Bulletin
provides planning guidelines for ASS and refers proponents to the ASS Guidelines Series, prepared by
DEC, which assist developers and individuals to manage development in areas where ASS may, or will
be affected.
7.9.3
Aspects and Impacts
Aspects of the Proposal with the potential to impact soil quality include clearing, topsoil stripping and
storage, creation of borrow pits, vehicle access tracks, trenches, bunds and other drainage features,
earth moving activities, vehicle movements, and use of hydrocarbons. The creation of a long, linear
drainage obstruction for the rail embankment could impact indirectly on soils be causing localised
changes in water flows leading to ponding or erosion.
The resulting potential soil quality impacts include:
alterations to soil chemistry (particularly Acid Sulfate Soils);
alterations to soil structure caused by disturbance;
the impact of soil disturbance on productive farm land (including farm scale biosecurity);
erosion by wind or water;
soil contamination; and
spread of weeds and diseases.
7.9.4
Soil Quality Impact Assessment
In this section, consideration is given to a range of soil related environmental issues throughout both
the pastoral and freehold areas. OPR has commenced consultation with landholders who may be
impacted directly by the Proposal. OPR recognises that individual landholder issues will be need to
be addressed through one on one consultations with regard to land access and the localised impacts
of the Proposal on an individual’s landholding. Remediation and management of the impacts on the
individual properties will need to undertaken in consultation with each landholder.
The rail embankment will be comprised of compacted soil material and is not expected to have any
direct or indirect impacts on adjacent soils. The design and compaction specifications for the
embankment mean that little erosion of this material is tolerable from an engineering perspective
and hence no significant soil impacts are expected.
Although no compaction machinery is expected to be used on construction haul roads, construction
equipment repeatedly traversing areas will lead to compaction of soils from construction machinery
traffic within borrow areas and haulage routes to the Rail Corridor can be expected (Planfarm, 2010).
Soil compaction can be alleviated using deep ripping which can be achieved using construction
machinery. As the traffic areas are no longer required, it is expected that these areas will be deep
ripped to alleviate any soil compaction.
The location of borrow areas is subject to further investigation and consultation with landowners.
Borrow material will be sourced from as close as feasible to the rail centreline (certain soil
characteristics and quantities are required to make a borrow area feasible). The economics of
accessing borrow will tend to drive locations to be close to the rail centreline. It is expected that
most borrow will be sourced from within the final operational corridor.
OPR Rail Development
Public Environmental Review
204
The access routes to and from borrow areas are also likely to have localised influence on surface
water runoff which may cause localised erosion. Localised water erosion can be managed using
small scale earthen drainage features to divert flows. In some cases, farms may have existing
drainage systems that OPR’s surface water management will integrate with.
Sandy textured soils are also likely to be prone to wind erosion from disturbance. Management of
this risk is usually achieved by retention of organic matter on and in the soil surface, or with cover
crops.
The majority of borrow material required is within the pastoral area where availability of water is the
over‐riding factor influencing farm productivity. The creation of areas of short term ponding and
aggregation of water may lead to localised water erosion but may also create areas of localised
increased soil moisture and vegetative growth. These areas can be attractive for weed
establishment.
At a farm scale, individual biosecurity considerations and the unique nature of each farm and farm
plan means that issues tend to be managed at an individual landholder down to a paddock scale. By
matching the scale of planning to individual landholdings, issues such as weed management can also
be considered in the context to the overall impact on farming operations and the farm plan.
Based on a preliminary assessment, only 16% of the Proposal length is expected to have a moderate
to high potential to impact on ASS (GHD, 2010). Of these areas, only a small portion (1.3% of the
Proposal) is expected to require excavation as in most cases excavation will be avoided. The higher
inherent ASS risks tend to occur in the pastoral zone, however there is very little cutting work
required for the rail, leaving a low residual risk. Borrow pits are relatively shallow features that are
not located within areas where there is an elevated risk of sulphidic materials and are unlikely to
generate any acid drainage.
No contaminated sites are known from the Proposal Area and the likelihood of soil contamination is
limited to small scale contamination resulting from spillage of diesel or pesticides. The increase in
use of diesel and potential for additional use of herbicides associated with the project
implementation makes the likelihood of contamination higher. Standard controls for storage and use
of hazardous materials are available to reduce the risk of contamination.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |