6 Impact Assessment – Physical Environment...6 Impact Assessment – Physical Environment 6.1 Topography, Drainage and Flooding 6.1.1 Existing Environment There are two creeks that

September 2008 Ref: 356448 85

Hunter Water Corporation Burwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 Upgrade Review of Environmental Factors

6 Impact Assessment – Physical Environment

6.1 Topography, Drainage and Flooding

6.1.1 Existing Environment There are two creeks that flow through the study area, Murdering Gully Creek to the west and an un-named creek to the east, the Tasman Sea is located to the south-east of the WWTW. Both creeks flow in a south-easterly direction through the Glenrock SCA discharging into the ocean on either side of the Burwood Beach WWTW. A sand bar forms across the mouth of both the watercourses during periods of low flow. In a flood event the floodwaters pond upstream of the sand bar until it is overtopped, the sand bar is then eroded and the watercourses discharge to the ocean.

The Wallsend topographical map 9232-3-S shows a drainage line passing through the WWTW, which drains the northern slopes of the gully below Merewether and Merewether Heights. The majority of the catchment is vegetated except for the WWTW. While the Burwood Beach WWTW has been subject to storm events no major floods have been recorded at the WWTW site.

During the construction phase of the original clarifiers, additional spoil was deposited in the vicinity of the creek on the eastern bank. These deposits resulted in the creek bed being diverted from its original course to what is seen today, that is, the stream now runs entirely outside the existing boundary fence of the WWTW.

The creek on the eastern side of the works has been diverted by construction of an underground pipeline that follows a similar alignment to the original creek, but within the fenced area of the site.

6.1.2 Impact Assessment Murdering Gully Creek, which flows past the western side of the study area along the boundary of the existing WWTW, has the potential to be affected by the Stage 2 Upgrade.

The installation of a fourth clarifier will require an area in the south of the site to be excavated. This excavation will be deeper than that of Murdering Gully. There is potential, in a storm event, for the creek to flood and therefore flow into the excavation if appropriate mitigation measures are not put in place. The likelihood of flooding of Murdering Gully has not been determined, however, the creek has been identified as a potential source of inundation to the WWTW site during a storm event.

The possible flow of water into the excavations and along exposed areas across the site also has the potential to lead to erosion and sedimentation of adjacent waterways. The potential impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.

86 Ref: 356448 September 2008

Hunter Water Corporation Burwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 Upgrade

Review of Environmental Factors

6.1.3 Mitigation Measures A sheet-pile wall, or other means of containing the creek flow within the creek bed and protecting the creek, will be implemented to prevent water from the creek infiltrating the excavation. The steel sheet-piling will be installed between Murdering Gully and the excavation above the existing ground-level along the existing fence line and around the site for the fourth clarifier. All installation work will be undertaken from the WWTW side of the fence and machinery will avoid the area between the creek and the fence line as far as practicable.

The sheet pile wall construction will prevent some stormwater entering the site and potentially becoming polluted from the exposed earthworks. It will also prevent the excavation becoming flooded by the creek in the event of a significant storm event. The installation of the sheet-pile wall will require pile driving inline with the boundary fence. For this reason, the fence will be removed during the installation of piles, it will be reinstated as soon as possible after completion of works on the fourth clarifier.

The water that falls directly into the excavation will be the responsibility of the excavation contractor to manage appropriately. The contractor will be expected to have an appropriate stormwater management plan in place.

6.2 Stormwater

6.2.1 Existing Environment There are currently five piped drainage systems onsite, these are detailed in Section 5.3.12.

An assessment of the stormwater system has been undertaken as part of the Stage 2 Upgrade. The following areas have been designated as having the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff:

� Around the aeration tanks and clarifiers – foaming events in the aeration tanks and clarifiers have resulted in foam overflows from the structures. Currently sand bags are placed in front of the stormwater inlet pits to prevent foam from entering the stormwater system.

� Screen house - mechanical failures in the screen house have been reported to cause occasional minor localised flooding.

6.2.2 Impact Assessment The Stage 2 Upgrade includes improvements to the existing stormwater system. Improvements include:

� A first flush system to divert potentially contaminated stormwater to the secondary pump station for treatment

� Addition of bunds, flood flaps and flood levees.



The first flush stormwater from potentially contaminated areas on-site will be diverted to the secondary pump station for treatment in the secondary treatment process. Flows beyond the first flush will continue to enter the stormwater system and flow to the creeks and ultimately Burwood Beach.

The proposed works will prevent contaminated stormwater flows from being released to the neighbouring creeks. The Stage 2 Upgrade will therefore result in an improvement to the current situation.

During construction substantial excavation work is expected in the south west portion of the site due to the construction of the new clarifier, hence disruptions to the current stormwater drainage network in the area are expected. Management of construction related materials during excavations and disruptions to the stormwater management drainage system will be managed under the contractor’s stormwater management plan.

During construction the current pipeline running along the area of the proposed fourth clarifier will be removed and diverted. Following construction, the pipe will be reinstated to follow its existing pathway to the creek. As the foam overflow problem from the clarifiers will be largely rectified during the construction period (from the construction of the fourth clarifier and upgrade of the existing clarifiers) the stormwater in this area is not likely to be polluted and will continue to flow into the creek.

6.2.3 Mitigation Measures Any areas of the site that are exposed during the Stage 2 Upgrade will be rehabilitated as soon as practicable to mitigate any erosion and sedimentation onsite and offsite.

Sedimentation and erosion of the site from stormwater has been addressed in Section 6.3 of this report.

6.3 Geology and Soils

6.3.1 Existing Environment SoilsReference to the 1:100,000 Newcastle Soil Landscape Map (Matthei, 1995) indicates that the soil types present on site are Killingworth, Hamilton and Stockton beach.

The Hamilton soil landscape is characterised by brownish black, coarse loamy sand in the topsoil to A1 horizon, loose pale coarse sand to the A2 horizon and brown to orange soft sandy pan in the subsoil. Limitations associated with this soil landscape include wind erosion hazard, non-cohesive soils, ground-water pollution hazard and potential foundations hazard due to localised, deep clay deposits.




The Killingworth soil landscape is characterised by brownish black pedal loam in the topsoil, bleached, hardsetting loamy sand to sandy clay loam to the A2 horizon and pedal yellowish brown clay in the subsoil. Limitations associated with this soil landscape include water erosion hazard, Mine Subsidence District hazards and seasonal water logging on lower slopes.

The Stockton Beach soil landscape is characterised by loose, coarse shelly greyish yellow brown marine sand and loose fine-to-medium grained aeolian sand. The sands have high permeability, erodibility and high salinity.

GeologyThe 1:31,680 Surface Geology of the Newcastle Coalfield map by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company indicates that the site is within or near alluvial deposits underlain by the Lambton Subgroup of the Permian aged Newcastle Coal measures. This subgroup consists of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, coal and tuff as well as including the Dudley and Borehole Coal Seams.

Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation was undertaken on site at the Burwood Beach WWTW. The soil type and groundwater level encountered over the areas of the site is discussed below.

The geotechnical investigation was supplied to the MSB for comment. MSB had no objections to the report or investigations that were carried out.

Acid Sulphate Soils Reference to the 1:25,000 Newcastle Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Map (Murphy, Ed 1, 1995) indicates that there is no known occurrence of acid sulphate soils within the vicinity of the WWTW.

Contaminated Land A portion of potentially contaminated land is suspected to exist in the north-west portion of Burwood Beach WWTW. The land was formerly used as a sanitary disposal depot and screenings disposal area. The screenings were disposed in shallow trenches. Two boreholes were drilled into the area to assess if contamination was present. The boreholes did not reveal the presence of screenings buried in the area and no organic odours or evidence of screenings were observed in the bores (Douglas Partners, 2008).

Summary of Soil Types Found During Geotechnical Investigation In general the geotechnical investigation showed the presence of filling and deep quaternary alluvial soils at the locations of the major structures to be constructed during the Stage 2 Upgrade. The alluvial deposits are mostly stiff to very stiff clay but also include layers of hard clay and medium-dense sand. Subsurface conditions vary across the site.



A brief description of the subsurface and soil conditions at each of the major structures associated with the Stage 2 Upgrade follows.

Aeration Splitter Box The upper 1.35 metres of soil in this area is expected to be fill, consisting of sandy clay. Below this lies alluvial sandy clay with some gravel, which extends to a depth greater than 10.45 m.

Aeration Tank No. 3 The geotechnical investigation indicated that filling is likely to extend to a depth between 2.5 m and 3.9 m. At bore number 16 the fill was underlain with wet, gravely sand, which was most likely placed as a working platform during the construction of the existing aeration tanks. Subsurface data from this area indicates that alluvial sands extend to a depth of at least 8 m, possibly underlain by residual soil at a depth of 12.85 and weathered rock at a depth of 16.85 m.

ClarifierThe subsurface conditions at the location of the fourth clarifier are highly variable. In general, the depth of fill decreases with distance from Murdering Gully, as does the depth to bedrock. Extremely weathered sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 8.75 m at Bore 1 and extremely weathered siltstone bedrock encountered at a depth of 11.8 m at Bore 18.

RAS Pumping Station The geotechnical data would suggest that this area is underlain by uncontrolled fill to a depth between 1.3 m and 2.3 m. This is underlain by an alluvial sequence of stiff to hard clay and sandy clay with sand lenses ranging from dense to loose sand to a depth of approximately 10.5 m. Beneath the alluvial soils lies silty clay and hard, gravely sand.

6.3.2 Impact Assessment The soils at the Burwood Beach WWTW that are likely to be disturbed as a result of the Stage 2 Upgrade are predominantly sandy clays and clay materials. Limitations associated with this soil type are the potential for wash out of the fine clay or silt materials and discharge of sediment into the stormwater system and watercourses or creation of boggy conditions where the material is high in clays.

The potential impact on the soils at the site is only likely to occur during the construction phase. These impacts may include the following:

� Soil erosion and associated impacts such as sedimentation of waterways due to removal of vegetation, movement of construction machinery and stockpiling of material.

� Soil contamination as a result of oil, chemicals, grease or fuel spillages or leaks associated with the operation and maintenance of plant and equipment.




� Soil compaction in areas immediately surrounding the construction zones and contractor’s compound, which may have implications for percolation of rainfall into the soil column and may slightly alter surface drainage characteristics.

Specifically these impacts may occur during the construction of the fourth clarifier and other excavation works. This construction will require excavation of soils, resulting in disturbance to the soil profile. The surface area that may potentially be exposed at one time is likely to be approximately 5,000 m2. This temporary and limited area of ground disturbance associated with the Project may result in minor erosion and sedimentation of waterways.

Stockpiles and exposed ground will be created when various excavations are undertaken across the site this may create sediment-laden run-off during storm events that could potentially be released from the site.

The north-west portion of the site will be used as the construction site compound and laydown area and soils within this area will not be disturbed.

The use of construction machinery powered by petrol/diesel will also represent a potential risk to soils from spills. There is also the potential for leakage from pipes that are decommissioned during construction. This may result in a discharge of sewage to the soil.

The risk to soils at the WWTW site during the operational phase will be minimal, however, there is a potential for spillage or leakage of chemicals stored on site.

6.3.3 Mitigation Measures In order to minimise soil erosion and sediment transportation a number of control measures will be implemented during the construction phase. A soil and water management plan will be prepared as part of the construction environmental management plan (CEMP). The soil and water management plan will be prepared in accordance with Landcom’s Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (March, 2004). Mitigation measures that will be implemented under the soil and water management plan include:

� Diversion of clean water around the site to avoid areas disturbed by construction works

� Limiting entry and exit to the construction site to one clearly defined, stabilised point

� Adequate site management including but not limited to the installation of sediment fences on the lower side of the construction site and jute matting where required to prevent sediment escaping into local waterways

� Suitable erosion and sediment controls will be placed on the downslope side of all stockpiles



� Sediment controls will be regularly inspected and maintained and any sediment that is trapped will be disposed of appropriately

� All erosion and sediment controls will be inspected following significant rainfall events of greater than 20 mm

� Visual monitoring of stockpiles to reduce the risk of sedimentation and dust generation

� Stripping and stockpiling of the topsoil for use in future rehabilitation works

� Progressive rehabilitation of the site during construction to limit the amount of exposed soil at any one time

� Construction of a temporary bunded area for a vehicle wash down facility. All runoff from the wash down site will be adequately contained to allow absorption into the soil

� If any soil is removed from the site for disposal it will be tested and classified before removal

� Trucks and machinery will be checked for leaks and appropriate spill kits will be available on site

� All refuelling activities will be undertaken offsite as far as practicable

� All chemicals and fuels will be stored in suitable bunded areas away from drainage lines. The capacity of the bunded area is to be at least 120% of the largest chemical container stored within the bunded area.

All chemicals to be used during operation on the WWTW site will be handled and stored appropriately on suitable bunding.

The detailed description of the soils should be considered when excavating or disturbing any areas of the site. Soil type, water seepage and the depth of groundwater in areas of the site may result in a need to use additional support structures in excavations. These should be considered when preparing the site CEMP.

Prior to excavation for the new clarifier and aeration tank, undertake an intrusive investigation across the excavation area to determine the existence of screenings disposal trenches. If buried screenings are disturbed:

� Personal protective equipment will be used.

� All disturbed screenings will be contained immediately and removed from site as soon as possible




6.4 Marine Sediments

6.4.1 Existing Environment Discharges from ocean outfall wastewater treatment plants have the potential to contribute to contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides and nutrients to the marine sediments. These contaminants can have impacts on the marine flora and fauna living in the substrate.

Sediments within the vicinity of the Burwood Beach WWTW ocean outfall were sampled in order to determine whether there were any impacts of contaminants associated with the discharge of sludge and effluent. The experimental design for the study required that sampling also be undertaken at three reference locations (a combination of sites close to the outfall and remote from the outfall) to assess the potential impact of the outfall.

At each site, the equivalent of three replicate sediment samples were collected by SCUBA divers and analysed for a range of sediment contaminants including, Organochlorines (OCs), Trace Metals (TMs), Nutrients, Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) and sediment characteristics. All data for each of the outfall and reference locations were analysed.

Analysis of trace metals, pesticides and nutrients within the sediments was undertaken between 1992-1994 as part of the Hunter Environmental Monitoring Program and again in 2006 by BioAnalysis Pty Ltd (Roberts, Cummins & Murray, 2007). The same parameters were assessed in each round of testing to evaluate any variation between the two rounds. The 2006 results provided no evidence to support the accumulation of contaminants within the sediments in the vicinity of the Burwood Beach Outfall. Furthermore, no organochlorines or EDCs (excl. PAHs) were detected at any of the reference locations or in the locality of the outfall.

Trace metal levels detected in all rounds of testing undertaken in 2006 conformed to the ANZECC (2000) guidelines, and with the exception of manganese, all metals were generally detected at higher levels at the sites remote from the outfall. These results supported the findings of the results from 1992-1994 (Ajani 1995).

The seabed in the vicinity of the sludge diffuser has been inspected by divers several times each year since 1994, this monitoring was undertaken to track the accumulation of sludge around the discharge point.

The monitoring results show that sludge does accumulate on the sand channel in which the diffuser is located, however, this sludge is periodically removed by storms, which occur several times each year.

6.4.2 Impact Assessment The concentration of trace metals and organochlorine pesticides in wastewater is controlled by trade waste. The Stage 2 Upgrade will not significantly change the



quality of effluent or biological solids discharged from the Burwood Beach outfall. The results of sediment quality studies conducted to date shows that the Burwood Beach outfall is having little to no impact on the accumulation of contaminants within marine sediments (CEE, 2007).

6.4.3 Mitigation Measures The Burwood Beach discharge is not having a significant impact on marine sediments. Hunter Water will continue to implement robust trade waste management practices across the catchment. Monitoring of sediment quality will continue every five years.

6.5 Surface Water Quality

6.5.1 Existing Environment The effluent and biological solids discharged from the Burwood Beach WWTW have been regularly tested to assess whether the chemicals entering the waters affect the reproduction, growth or survival of aquatic species.

Three types of studies have been undertaken to assess the potential impact of the outfall on water quality. The first involves comparing concentrations of a wide range of constituents known to be in the discharge with concentrations listed in the ANZECC (2000) guidelines. The second type involves bioassays, also known as whole effluent toxicity tests. The third involves dissolved oxygen levels in the water column.

The results of chemical analyses of the effluent and biological solids discharges and comparison with ANZECC trigger values are shown in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 Water Quality results of the chemical analysis of the effluent and biological solids discharge streams

Constituent Unit Effluent Biological solids Constituent Unit

Trigger Value1 Near Field Concentration2

BOD mg/L - 0.095 - 13.829

TSS mg/L - 0.317 - 52.000

GREASE mg/L - 0.079 - 3.157

TN mg/L 0.12 0.476 0.12 2.714

TP mg/L 0.025 0.089 0.025 0.857

AMMONIA mg/L - - 0.5 0.386

SILVER ug/L 1 0.095 1 0.886




Constituent Unit Effluent Biological solids Constituent Unit

Trigger Value1 Near Field Concentration2

COPPER ug/L 0.3 0.530 0.3 24.643

NICKEL ug/L 7 0.127 7 1.314

LEAD ug/L 2 0.117 2 5.971

ZINC ug/L 7 0.001 7 0.074

CADMIUM ug/L - - 0.7 0.157

CHROMIUM (III) ug/L - - 7.7 1.829

MERCURY ug/L - - 0.1 0.121

CHLORPYRIFOS ug/L 0.0005 0.001 0.0005 0.001

ENDOSULFAN ug/L 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.000

ENDRIN ug/L 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000

Notes: 1 ANZECC (2000), Table 3.4.1, for marine water, 99%ile 2 Based on historic plant data and modelled minimum dilutions at the edge of the initial mixing zone (WRL, 2008) 4 Concentrations in bold exceed trigger value

The analyses show that several contaminants would be of concern when compared to the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwaters (2000) based on the trigger values for slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems. Exceedence of the ANZECC trigger values does not automatically equate to an unacceptable environmental impact. Rather, if concentrations reach the trigger values, further investigations, such as whole effluent tests, are required.

In line with site specific risk assessment approach adopted by the ANZECC guidelines, results of direct whole effluent toxicity testing is now considered more appropriate in assessing potential environmental impacts of discharges. Whole effluent toxicity tests involve exposing selected sensitive organisms to the discharge at various concentrations, or dilutions. The concentration at which there are no observable effects (relative to a control test done under the same conditions with clear water) is determined.



The testing provides a direct assessment of the impact of the discharge on aquatic organisms, rather than inferring from chemical monitoring results and guideline limits. The tests reveal the toxic effects of all chemicals in the discharge and whether similar types of chemicals act together to produce a toxic effect greater than their individual effects.

Six rounds of toxicity bioassays have been undertaken on the Burwood Beach discharge since 1996. The studies are listed in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Toxicity Bioassays Studies

Year Author/Laboratory

1995 Australian Water Technologies


1997/1998 Australian Water Technologies

1999 Sinclair Knight Merz

2000 Sinclair Knight Merz

2001 Ecotox

2005 Ecotox

Three types of toxicity tests have been undertaken in the studies:

� Sea urchin (Heliocidaris tuberculata) fertilisation success test

� 72 hr sea urchin (Heliocidaris tuberculata) larval development test

� 72 hr microalgae (Nitzschia closterium) growth inhibition test.

Sea urchins were chosen as the test organism because they were identified as being the most sensitive organism tested with sewage discharge (Sydney Water Corporation, 1996). Test results are provided in terms of the minimum dilution of the discharge at which there was a change from the control result, called the Lowest Observable Effect Concentration (LOEC), and the No Observable Effect Concentration (NOEC) which is the extrapolated dilution corresponding to no effect on organisms.

The results of the toxicity bioassays were independently reviewed by CEE in 2007 (see Appendix C). CEE expressed the bioassay results by defining the minimum dilution in the initial mixing zone (the near-field) that corresponds to the median result for LOEC and NOEC in each group of tests. A summary of CEE’s analysis of the test results is shown in Table 6-3. From the analysis it can be seen that a dilution of 42:1 appears to be sufficient for the discharge to have no effect on any of the test organisms. Therefore the outfall must achieve an initial dilution of at least 42:1 to




have no impact on the test organisms. Applying a safety factor of two, it is concluded that the discharge would likely have no impact on any of the test organisms if the outfall achieved a minimum required initial dilution of 84:1 (CEE, 2007).

Recent performance testing and modelling of the Burwood Beach outfall has found the minimum initial dilutions of the discharge under existing flow conditions (i.e. 43ML/d) to be 63:1 for the effluent plume and 70:1 for the biological solids plume (WRL, 2008). Therefore the outfall is operating within the factor of safety zone for toxicity. The discharge is unlikely to have an impact on any of the test organisms under existing conditions.

Table 6-3 Summary of CEE analysis on minimum initial dilution required

Study No effect Lowered Effect

Sea Urchin Fertilisation

1999 2:1 2:1

2000 2:1 2:1

2001 6:1 3:1

2005 2:1 2:1

Sea Urchin Larval Development

1996 42:1 33:1

1998 7:1 4:1

1999 3:1 2:1

2000 20:1 8:1

2001 11:1 6:1

2005 11:1 6:1

Microalgal Growth

2000 2000 2000

2001 2001 2001

2005 2005 2005

Dissolved oxygen levels in the water column were also measured. A significant reduction in dissolved oxygen (below 30% saturation) causes stress to marine ecology and will alter marine species distribution.



AWACS measured dissolved oxygen levels in the water column in the plume from the biological solids discharge and found no significant reduction (AWACS, 1996). A small reduction was measured, however, this is attributed to waters from the lower levels of the ocean with lower dissolved oxygen being brought to the surface with the plume, rather than due to the discharge itself. The reduction is of no environmental significance.

The finding is consistent with results of studies at other ocean outfalls (CEE, 2007).

Impact of Bypass Flows Flows that bypass the treatment process have the potential to impact the marine environment. During wet weather periods, flows entering Burwood Beach WWTW exceed 1,400 L/s. Flows greater than 1,400 L/s bypass the secondary treatment process and discharge directly into the ocean outfall. Untreated flows that are discharged through the outfall have the potential to discharge higher levels of contaminants and increase the risk of having a significant impact on water quality or marine ecology.

The intention of the existing plant license is that all dry weather flows shall receive secondary treatment. The rationale is that during wet weather periods, the wastewater is relatively dilute and therefore the bypass flows are unlikely to cause significant water quality impacts if discharged into the ocean after preliminary treatment (i.e. screening and grit removal).

HWC collects data on the bypass date, duration, and volume from the point at which the effluent bypasses the secondary pump station. The most recent dataset (i.e., for years 2005, 2006, and 2007) has been reviewed, and the key statistics are summarised in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Detailed Bypass Data

2005 2006 2007

Total volume of bypass in the year (ML)

596 696 2,795

Max bypass rate (ML/d)

135 108 921

Min bypass rate (ML/d) 3 3 2 Average bypass rate (ML/d)

40 28 80

Number of incidents of bypass

15 25 35

Total flow received at WWTW in year

21,726 21,519 26,511

Percentage of flow bypassed in year

2.7% 3.2% 10.5%




The data from Burwood Beach WWTW shows that the quantities of bypass flows are generally small. In 2005 and 2006, bypass flows accounted for 2.7% and 3.2% of the total wastewater flow received at the WWTW in the respective year. In 2007, the proportion of bypass flows was higher, at 10.5%.

An analysis of the bypasses from HWC database indicates that:

� All bypasses in 2005 and 2006 were caused by wet weather events.

� In 2007, 89% bypasses were caused by wet weather events (29 occasions totalling 2,486ML) and 11% by Secondary Pump Station equipment or power failure (six occasions totalling 309ML).

� June 2007 was one of the wettest months on record in Newcastle and included a major storm event which resulted in a significant increase in inflows to the plant and therefore bypass volumes.

On average, Burwood Beach WWTW treats over 95% of all flows received at the plant (excluding 2007 data).

6.5.2 Impact Assessment ToxicityThe performance testing of the Burwood Beach outfall included modelling of the outfall at the plant’s design capacity. The results of the modelling showed that the minimum dilutions (99 percentile) of the discharge under proposed conditions (i.e. 53 ML/d) to be 61:1 for the effluent plume and 77:1 for the biological solids plume (WRL, 2008).

Variations seen in the results of the toxicity tests are largely due to the ammonia concentration in the discharge. Ammonia is one of the most likely constituents to cause a toxic response from marine organisms (CEE, 2007). The Stage 2 Upgrade will waste biological solids from the aeration tanks instead of the clarifiers as is the case in the existing plant. The aeration tanks are a more aerobic environment and therefore the biological solids in the tanks will contain less ammonia. This will limit the amount of ammonia within the discharge thereby minimising the potential for toxic impacts to marine organisms (CEE, 2007).

The Stage 2 Upgrade will result in a minor but not significantly improvement in the quality of effluent and biological solids discharged. The results of water quality and toxicity testing to date show that the Burwood Beach WWTW discharge will not have a significant impact on water quality.

Bypass Events During the operational phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade the WWTW will continue to treat all flows up to 1,400L/s. As the bypasses are typically the result of wet weather events, the Stage 2 Upgrade would not significantly affect the volume of bypass flows.



During the construction phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade, the ABF tower will be bypassed for up to 6 months to complete the ABF media replacement works. With the ABF tower off-line the capacity of the secondary treatment process will be 1,100 L/s. This is less than the existing licence limit. The maximum secondary treated flow should be reduced to 1,100 L/s to ensure a reliable treatment process during this period.

The lowered bypass flow limit will result in an increase in the volume of bypass flows around the secondary treatment process. Analysis of daily plant inflow data since 2002 shows that the existing WWTW treats at least 95% of all inflows. By reducing the maximum secondary treated flow to 1,100 L/s (or 95 ML/d) the WWTW would treat approximately 92% of all inflows. The reduction in secondary treated flow to 1,100 L/s for this period would result in 3% increase in bypass flows and is not considered to result in a significant impact on water quality or marine ecology.

A temporary variation to the existing plant licence will be required to modify the maximum secondary treated flow limit.

6.5.3 Mitigation Measures Monitoring of the outfall and toxicity bioassays will continue

6.6 Groundwater

6.6.1 Exiting Environment Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (Douglas Partners) was engaged by CH2M HILL to carry out a geotechnical investigation of Burwood Beach WWTW. The investigation works included drilling of 26 boreholes to depths between 1.0 m and 13.45 m. When drilling the bores, groundwater was encountered in the bores at depths ranging from 2.1 m to 7.0 m.

Wells were installed in bores numbered 1, 3, 11, 14 and 21 for groundwater monitoring. The wells were installed on 29 January 2008 and observations of the depth of groundwater made on 6 February 2008 and the 29 February 2008.

Table 6-5 contains the groundwater observations on these dates. It should be noted that the observations on 29 February 2008 were made following a heavy rainfall event and it is likely that the storm event recharged the aquifer therefore temporarily raising the groundwater levels.




Table 6-5 Groundwater Observations

Observations

During Fieldwork

Observations

6 February

Observations

29 February Bore Number

Surface Level

(m AHD) Depth to GW (m)

Level of GW

(m AHD)

Depth to GW (m)

Level of GW

(m AHD)

Depth to GW (m)

Level of GW (m AHD)

1 11.42 7 4.42 5.95 5.47 4.37 7.05

3 11.24 NE to 2.5 - 5.42 5.82 4.33 6.91

11 8.58 3.5 5.08 2.21 6.37 2.18 6.40

14 9.59 3.3 6.29 2.85 6.74 2.68 6.91

21 12.49 NE - 5.91 6.58 5.87 6.62

NE Not Encountered AHD Australian Height Datum GW Groundwater

As can be seen, the level of groundwater at the Burwood Beach WWTW is relatively high, sitting at a depth between approximately 2 m and 7 m.

A number of bores located adjacent to each other showed large disparities in the level at which groundwater was encountered. This disparity, coupled with observations during construction of the original aeration tanks, suggests that a number of local perched aquifers may exist on-site.

6.6.2 Impact Assessment Due to the high level of the groundwater table at the Burwood Beach WWTW groundwater will be encountered during construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade. In particular excavations associated with the fourth clarifier, the third aeration tank and the RAS pumping station will be affected by groundwater inflow. Groundwater, when encountered will need to be pumped out of excavations and away from the construction activities. The geotechnical investigation concluded that due to the low permeability of many soils on-site groundwater inflow into excavations should be low and controllable.

Ground support systems used during construction, such as sheet-pile walls, may experience hydrostatic pressure from the flow of groundwater. This pressure could cause the support system to buckle and potentially fail causing damage to existing structures and potentially impacting on adjacent landforms, eg. watercourses.

There is the potential for this groundwater to be contaminated, due to previous and on-going activities on the site. Contamination present in the groundwater, if present,



is likely to be associated with the former storage of night-soil onsite, thus the likely contaminants to be encountered include heavy metals, nutrients, greases and PAHs. Faecal coliforms do not persist in the groundwater environment and are not expected to be present. If contaminated groundwater is released on the site there is the potential for it to spread contamination to surrounding land and surface waters.

6.6.3 Mitigation Measures A sheet-pile wall will be constructed around the excavation area associated with the fourth clarifier and new RAS pump station. The sheet pile wall will prevent soil and substrate eroding and slipping from underneath the surrounding clarifiers which may occur as a result of dewatering. As the soil beneath the clarifiers is either sandy or loamy dewatering of the excavation should not result in shrinking of the substrate. The sheet-pile wall will be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressure that may be generated through the flow of groundwater.

The soil and water management plan will outline measures that will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts from dewatering, including the effects of recharge.

Prior to disposal the groundwater will be tested for potential contamination. The groundwater will be dealt with in one of two ways:

� If the waters are contaminated it will be pumped to the head of works and will pass through the treatment process

� If the waters are uncontaminated it will be allowed to infiltrate into a vegetated area on the site.

6.7 Terrestrial Ecology

6.7.1 Existing Environment Threatened flora, fauna and ecological communities known to exist within the vicinity of the Burwood Beach WWTW were assessed by HWR in March 2007. A 10km x 10km area was centred on the WWTW and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Wildlife Atlas was consulted and supplemented with aerial photography interpretation, a site inspection and local knowledge. In addition a search was undertaken of the EPBC Act Protected Matters Register.

The search of the EPBC Act register revealed the potential existence of 36 threatened species and 43 migratory species within a 2 km radius of the site. A list of the 36 threatened flora and fauna suspected to occur within the vicinity of the Burwood Beach WWTW can be found in Appendix D. Of these, two species of birds (Powerful Owl and Masked Owl) and three species of bats (Grey-headed Flying Fox, Little Bentwing-bat and Eastern Bentwing-bat) are likely to be utilising the habitats within the study area (a 10km x 10km grid centred on the study area) (Winning, 2007). These are highly mobile species that would use habitats throughout the adjoining Glenrock State Conservation Area (SCA) and nearby bushland areas.




Many other fauna species may occasionally occur within the vicinity of the WWTW. The squirrel glider, for example, occurs within the bushland throughout Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, although the habitat within the surrounds of the WWTW is considered sub-optimal for the squirrel glider. There is the potential, however, for these gliders to pass through the area.

The vegetation surrounding the WWTW has been highly disturbed in the past. There are unlikely to be any threatened flora communities in the area of the WWTW, however, there is potential for them to occur within the undisturbed areas of HWC land adjacent to the site. The vegetation community at the WWTW site is dominated by mown non-native grass.

Headlands to the northeast and southeast of the Burwood Beach WWTW may support the Endangered Ecological Community of Themeda Grassland on Seacliffs and Coastal Headlands (TGSCH).

Patches of reeds to the south-east of the WWTW, associated with the Murdering Gully creek line could be described as Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains (FWCF) an endangered ecological community.

Areas adjacent to the WWTW perimeter fence are dominated by weeds such as Flax-leaf Fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), Bitou Bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. Rotundata), Lantana (Lantana camera), exotic grasses and pioneering shrubs such as wattles (Acacia spp). Bitou Bush is particularly severe along the verge of the WWTW access road and within the grassy open forest on the west-facing slope of the gully (Connell Wagner, 2006).

6.7.2 Impact Assessment The Stage 2 Upgrade is to be undertaken within the fence line of the WWTW and is unlikely to impact on any potential EECs or threatened species that may occur in the surrounding area. Areas that have been identified as important habitat will also not be affected by the Stage 2 Upgrade as the works will occur within the boundary of the Burwood Beach WWTW.

The nationally threatened species that were identified within the surrounding area are not likely to be impacted on by the upgrade activities, therefore, approval is not required from the Commonwealth Environmental Minister under the EPBC Act.

Glenrock SCA contains many native flora and fauna species which are protected species under the NPW Act 1974 and the TSC Act. As the activities are not considered likely to have an impact on these species the permitting requirements of these Acts will not be triggered.

Removal of remnant regrowth vegetation in the north-western corner of the site maybe required in order to provide additional space for the construction laydown area.



There is potential for weed invasion into and out of the proposed work sites via vehicle/plant movement and disturbance. Weeds may compete with native species to such an extent that they can increasingly dominate and destroy the existing natural ecology. In addition, any introduced plant species used in rehabilitation and regeneration works, such as turf used in rehabilitation, may also successfully adapt to the environment and could compete with established native species resulting in further weed spread. Weed invasion is recognised as a threat to survival of endangered ecological communities. Weed control during and following construction is considered to be necessary.

There is potential for soil erosion during excavation, as well as from the erosion of stockpiled spoil which may result in polluted runoff during rainfall events. Sediment may be transported via runoff into adjacent vegetation and/or creeks. Polluted runoff may cover low-lying plants or plant root systems with sediment or smother aquatic plants and/or animals. This transportation of sediments may also interfere with fish breathing and filter feeding mechanisms.

Turbid water reduces light availability in the water column and the infilling of channels with sediment changes the natural form of watercourses. The risk of these impacts occurring will be minimised through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (Refer to 6.3.3).

6.7.3 Mitigation Measures Specific mitigation measures include:

� The area of vegetation cleared for the proposed works, within the WWTW fence line is to be kept to a minimum

� Any landscaping and/or erosion control works that occurs onsite will utilise native species as far as is practicable

� The spreading of exotic species will be controlled through the utilisation of local topsoil, where possible, and controlled through weed management

� All exotic vegetation will be removed prior to construction and disposed of at an appropriately licensed landfill

� All weed plant parts will be kept away from drainage lines to prevent weed infestation in unaffected areas

� Prior to the removal of vegetation tree hollows will be inspected for fauna. Any fauna found will be relocated by an ecologist, or similarly trained person (eg WIRES personnel), to an appropriate habitat as soon as practicable (at night for nocturnal species)

� Any non-hollow-bearing trees around those with tree hollows to be felled will be removed first. At least one day will be left between clearing of the non-hollow-bearing trees and the hollow-bearing trees to allow fauna time to vacate the trees




� Prior to felling of the identified and marked hollow-bearing trees, the trees will be shaken or nudged by tree-felling equipment to encourage any fauna to vacate the trees

� If no animals emerge from the hollows after shaking or nudging, then the tree will be felled and lowered to the ground if possible

� All native tress that are removed will be chipped onsite, this wood chip will be reused in the landscaping works where possible

� All tree stumps will be removed and chipped where possible, or ground out in situ, to minimise safety hazards

� Any injured wildlife found onsite will be captured and taken to the local veterinarian or WIRES

� Site inductions will include information on threatened species (e.g. owls, bats, birds and flora communities) that may occur within the vicinity of the WWTW

� If any threatened species are discovered on site before or during construction, work will stop immediately

� The construction footprint will be clearly defined and all construction staff instructed that no work or plant will be located outside the construction footprint

� All staff will be instructed to avoid any contact, as far as practicable, with the surrounding creeks or their banks during construction.

6.8 Marine Ecology

6.8.1 Existing Environmental Marine flora and fauna can be sensitive to minor changes in their environment. The effluent and biological solids discharges from the Burwood Beach WWTW have the potential to disturb these communities. Assessments of benthic communities, toxicity tests (see Section 6.5) and bioaccumulation studies have been undertaken to assess the potential impact of the outfall on marine ecology.

Benthic Communities Two types of studies have been undertaken to monitor benthic communities at the outfall; the first involves diving inspections of the outfall. The second type involves taking surveys of macrobenthos around the outfall and at reference locations remote from the outfall. Macrobenthos is a description for all large organisms living on or in the sea floor.

The sea floor in the vicinity of the outfall has been inspected by divers several times each year from 1994. Since 2006 diving inspections have occurred biannually. The divers observe and measure any solids accumulation on the sea floor around the outfall and within two caves on the sea floor near the outfall.



Results of diving inspections show that solids deposits on the sea floor range from zero up to 125mm on occasions. Solids deposits are deeper in nearby caves which are particularly protected from ocean currents and were measured up to 400 mm in 1995. However since 1998 the depth of solids deposits has not exceeded 150 mm.

The monitoring results show that solids do accumulate on the sea floor around the outfall. However, the maximum area on which solids are deposited has not been measured. The accumulation of solids is removed by major storms which occur several times a year. No long term accumulation of solids on the sea floor has been observed (CEE, 2007).

Eight rounds of macrobenthos surveys have been undertaken at the Burwood Beach outfall since 1993. The studies are listed in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6 Macrobenthos Surveys

Year Author

1993 NSW EPA

1994 NSW EPA

1996 (2) The Ecology Lab

1998 The Ecology Lab



2006 Bio-Analysis Pty Ltd

The surveys involve photographing standardised areas of the sea floor near the outfall and at reference locations remote from the outfall. The percentage cover of silt and of various organisms is then determined by projecting the image onto a grided screen.

Nutrients discharged from the plant have the potential to cause local ecosystem modification (CEE, 2007). However, the results of macrobenthos surveys undertaken to date show that there is little evidence of local ecosystem modification near the Burwood Beach outfall. In the 2000 and 2006 studies it was noted that there was significantly smaller richness of algae near the outfall compared to the reference locations. No other surveys noted this occurrence.

Some changes appear to be short term. In the 1990’s the percentage cover of sponges decreased while ascidians increased. But in 2003 the situation had reversed, with the




sponges increasing and the ascidians decreasing. By 2006 the cover of ascidians has decreased again while the sponges remained about the same. Similar variations in ecological communities have been detected over time in other monitoring programmes and show the dynamic patterns of distribution of organisms.

The results of the surveys show that the spatial and temporal changes in macrobenthos at the outfall over the survey periods have been within the range of natural variation. Because of the temporal and spatial variability, there are no distinct patterns in the diversity, abundance or structure of the macrobenthos at the outfall that could be related to the Burwood Beach discharge (CEE, 2007).

Bioaccumulation Studies Trace metals and organochlorine pesticides have the capability of accumulating within the tissues of oysters and fish. Bioaccumulation studies investigating the levels of trace metals and organochlorine pesticides within the tissues of oysters and fish species were undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Burwood Beach outfall.

Bioaccumulation in Oysters Analysis of heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides in Sydney rock oysters (Saccostrea commercialis) was undertaken from 1992 to 1996 as part of the Hunter Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP). Oysters were used because they are filter feeders and can “sift” large volumes of seawater, accumulating any contaminants. The oysters were moored in bags at the Burwood Beach outfall and a number of locations remote from the outfall for three months during which each oyster could filter up to 2,500 litres of seawater. Over 5,500 samples from oysters deployed at the outfall were analysed.

The oysters were analysed for heavy metals. All 12 metals tested were detected but were recorded at very low levels and at comparable levels to those found offshore in Sydney and other estuarine areas in NSW (EPA, 1994). Based on statistical analyses, the levels of heavy metals in the oysters deployed at Burwood Beach outfall were no different to the levels in oysters at remote locations.

The oysters were also analysed for organochlorine pesticides. Fourteen of the 17 pesticides analysed were not detected in the oysters. Two (DDE and chlordane) were infrequently detected at the Burwood Beach location but were recorded at very low levels. The EPA also found wild oysters containing high levels of chlordane in Throsby Creek and in the south channel of the Hunter River (EPA, 1994). This indicates that chlordane, which was used as a termiticide until its ban in 1994, has been entering the waterways and marine environment of the Hunter Region probably as a consequence of stormwater runoff (SKM, 1997).

DDD was also infrequently detected but there is doubt over these results as it appears that the samples may have been contaminated.



Based on the results of the analyses the EPA concluded that organochlorine pesticides were not at levels to cause health or environmental concerns.

Bioaccumulation in Fish Analysis of heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides in numerous species of fish was undertaken in 1990 and 1994 by HWC. The 1990 survey involved analysing various fish species (red morwong, cockies and blue groper) for both trace metals and organochlorine pesticides. These fish were collected at five beaches (Boulder Bay, Nobby’s, Burwood Beach, Swansea and Catherine Hill Bay). The 1994 survey focussed on the presence of organochlorine pesticides in red morwong collected in close proximity to the Burwood Beach outfall.

The results of the 1990 study indicated that fish from all sites demonstrated high levels of arsenic and selenium which exceeded the National Health and Medical Research Council’s medical residue limits (NHMRC MRL). The fish at Burwood Beach showed slightly higher levels of nickel, however, there is no NHMRC MRL for nickel. The levels of the remaining metals present in fish from Burwood Beach were all within the range of levels found at the other sites (HWC, 2007).

The 1990 study showed that fish collected from Burwood Beach had more elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides residue than other survey sites. Between 1990 and 1994, there was a reduction in the levels of two pesticides (Chlordane and Dieldrin) seen in fish from Burwood Beach. All organochlorine pesticides were below NHMRC MRL in the 1994 survey.

The results of the bioaccumulation surveys in fish indicate that the Burwood Beach discharge does not have a significant impact on the levels of heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides in fish (CEE, 2007).

6.8.2 Impact Assessment Benthic Communities The results of diving inspections and macrobenthos surveys undertaken to date show that the Burwood Beach discharge does not have a significant impact on macbrobenthos around the outfall. As the Stage 2 Upgrade will not significant change the components of the effluent and biological solids discharges, the works will continue to have minimal impacts on benthic communities.

BioaccumulationThe results of bioaccumulation studies undertaken to date show that heavy metals and organochlorine pesticides in oysters and fish near the Burwood Beach outfall are not at levels that are considered to cause environmental or human health concerns. As the Stage 2 Upgrade will not significantly change the quality of effluent or biological solids discharged, the works will continue to have minimal impacts on bioaccumulation in oysters and fish.




Independent Review of Environmental Monitoring Programme An independent review of the environment monitoring programme for the Burwood Beach outfall undertaken by CEE in 2007 concluded that the Burwood Beach WWTW discharge has a minor zone of impact (estimated to be approximately 1 hectares) in which there is regular deposition of biological solids and associated effects, and an outer zone of impact (up to 4 hectares) in which there are measurable shifts in ecological species composition due to the effects of nutrients. All other environmental effects are assessed as being low, or of negligible risk. The impacts associated with the discharge of effluent and biological solids from the Burwood Beach WWTW are considered to be reversible if use of the outfall was to cease in the future (CEE, 2007).

6.8.3 Mitigation Measures The concentration of heavy metals and pesticides in wastewater is controlled by trade waste. The upgrade will not significantly change the quality of the effluent or biological solids discharged. Hunter Water will continue to implement robust trade waste management practices across the catchment.

Monitoring of the marine environment around the outfall and at local beaches will continue. The monitoring programme will include:

� Beach monitoring as per NSW Beachwatch protocols

� Macrobenthos surveys every two years

� Toxicity bioassays every two years

� Biological solids discharge quality for metals and organics weekly/monthly

� Sediment contamination studies every five years

� Bioaccumulation studies every five years.



7 Impact Assessment – Socio-Economic Environment

7.1 Socio-Economic Setting

7.1.1 Existing Environment PopulationStatistics presented in this section have been taken from the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census of population and housing, undertaken in August 2006.

The metropolitan area of Newcastle is the second most populated area in NSW. It includes both Newcastle LGA and Lake Macquarie LGA and is the predominant city within the Hunter region. Over the ten years between 1996 and 2006 Lake Macquarie LGA has experienced an increase in population of approximately 10,000 people and Newcastle LGA an increase of approximately 8,000 people.

The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy plans for the development of an additional 115,000 dwellings by 2031, to cater for an additional 160,000 people within the Hunter Region by that time. 60% of these dwellings will be built on new release land and the other 40% will be built in existing urban areas.

The projected population and loading (EP) was calculated for the catchment in the CH2M HILL Flow and Load Assessment (CH2M HILL, 2005). These figures can be seen below in Table 7-1

Table 7-1 Population and Projected total EP (Flow Basis) for the Burwood Beach WWTW

Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 142,246 148,881 155,180 161,316 167,598

EP (Flow Basis) 187,282 197,037 205,870 213,817 220,832

7.1.2 Impact Assessment The predicted growth of the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LGAs will require an increase in the provision of wastewater treatment services. As Burwood Beach WWTW is currently operating at capacity the upgrade of the WWTW will be an integral part of catering for anticipated growth. The upgrade is providing a service to enable the anticipated growth in the catchment area.

The nearest residences to Burwood Beach WWTW are approximately 600 m away and are located on top of a ridge, overlooking the WWTW. These properties are the only properties likely to be affected during the construction works, thus the immediate social impact of the development will be minimal and property prices are not likely to be affected due to the short duration of the construction impacts.




During construction the overall impact on the socio-economic setting would be beneficial to the area. The construction phase of the project would potentially contribute to a small scale and short-term increase in local and regional economic activity. Contractor requirements for material, equipment, parts and fuel supplies will benefit regional businesses. The influx of construction team workers will potentially generate a temporary increase in commercial trade for businesses such as take away food shops. Operation of the WWTW will not generate additional employment in the area.

The Stage 2 Upgrade will not result in an interruption to the provision of utility services.

7.1.3 Mitigation Measures No specific mitigation measures are required for socio-economic considerations resulting from this Project.

7.2 Land Use

7.2.1 Existing Environment The Burwood Beach WWTW is located in Merewether Heights, on the coast south of the Newcastle CBD. The site has been used as a treatment works since the Burwood Beach WWTW was built in 1933.

Land to the south and south west of Burwood Beach WWTW is reserved as Glenrock SCA. The Conservation area hosts the Yuelarbah Walking Track which is part of the 220 kilometre Great North Walk from Sydney to Newcastle. The conservation area is also known for bird-watching, with over 140 species of birds recorded as being spotted within the area. Glenrock SCA is also a popular bike riding destination. Cyclists often use the access track to Burwood Beach WWTW to access the conservation area.

Both Burwood Beach and Dudley Beach to the south of the WWTW are popular for swimming, surfing, and beach and rock fishing. Merewether Beach, to the north-east of Burwood Beach is host to annual surfing competitions and the Merewether Ocean Baths and the Merewether Old Baths are located next to the beach. Since the 1930s Merewether baths were acclaimed as the largest of their kind in NSW (NSW Heritage Office, http://www.nswoceanbaths.info/pools/b012.htm).

The closest residences to the property are located on Scenic Drive and Hickson Street. These properties are renowned for having views across the ocean due to their elevation.

7.2.2 Impact Assessment The Project will not impact on these surrounding land-uses and will involve no change to the current land use.



7.2.3 Mitigation Measures Nearby residents will be notified about the works and will be kept informed throughout the planning and construction phases of the Stage 2 Upgrade.

7.3 Air Quality

7.3.1 Existing Environment ClimateMeteorological data for wind direction at the Burwood Beach WWTW has been sourced from odour dispersion modelling undertaken by Holmes Air Sciences in 2005 (see Appendix E). The meteorological conditions at site were derived using a modelling program called CALMET. CALMET predicts meteorological conditions for a site based on meteorological data collected at the site itself and in the surrounding area and takes into consideration the terrain and land uses in the vicinity of the site.

Most winds on the site come from the north-west with strong winds (>7.5m/s) coming from the south and south-south-east approximately 12% of the time. When considering the seasonal wind roses (see Appendix E), this is also the case across the seasons, however, in summer the stronger south and south-south-east winds occur more often. Low wind speeds are most prevalent in winter and autumn followed by spring and summer.

The study area has generally good rainfall, summer temperatures are warm to hot and winters are cool to warm. Table 7-2 shows the latest Bureau of Meteorology climatic averages for the Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS (061055). These averages are taken from 1871 – 2008. The driest month of the year is November and the wettest is March. January is the hottest month while July is the coldest.

Table 7-2 Climate Averages (BOM, 2008)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean Maximum Temperature (°C)

25.5 25.4 24.7 22.8 20.0 17.5 16.7 18.0 20.2 22.1 23.5 24.9 21.8

Mean Minimum Temperature (°C)

19.2 19.3 18.2 15.3 12 9.6 8.4 9.2 11.4 14.0 16.1 18 14.2

Mean Rainfall (mm) 89.5 108 120.5 115.9 117.5 95.0 75.1 73 73.0 73.2 70.5 81.8 1140

Existing Air Quality - Air Pollutants and Dust Air pollutants are monitored twice daily by the EPA and are recorded as a Regional Pollutant Index. The Newcastle region is typically classified as having low air pollutants with an occasional moderate level (~3.5% of the time). This ‘low air pollution’ meets the standards set in the National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) for ambient air quality.

Pressures on air quality in the area come from a variety of sources, including:




� Motor vehicles

� Industrial sources

� Commercial shipping

� Railways

� Domestic solid fuels

� Commercial solvents

The five most common air pollutants from these sources are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from motor vehicles; sulphur dioxide from commercial shipping practices and fine particulate matter resulting from a variety of industrial activities.

Existing Air Quality - Odour An odour impact assessment was undertaken at Burwood Beach WWTW in 2005 and 2006 (refer to Appendix E). Odour sampling was conducted at the plant using approved DECC methods. The DECC Odour Assessment criteria used in this assessment can be seen in Table 7-3 below. For this assessment an odour level of 2.0 OU at the nearest sensitive receptor, based on 99th percentile compliance and a 1 hour averaging period was used.

CALPUFF odour dispersion modelling was undertaken using the results of this sampling to determine the odour impact of the plant under current operation. The current operation assumes the new biofilter treating odorous gas from the primary pump station and screen house has been commissioned. The results of the modelling, and the predicted existing impacts of the Burwood Beach WWTW on odour can be seen in Figure 7-1. The odour emission rates used in the modelling can be seen in Table 7-4.

Table 7-3 NSW DECC Odour Assessment Criteria

Population of Affected Community Odour Assessment Criteria 3(OU)

Rural single residence (�2) 7.0

~ 10 6.0

~ 30 5.0

~125 4.0

~ 500 3.0

Urban area (� 2000) and/or schools and hospitals 2.0

Note: 3 Nose-response-time average, 99th percentile, AS4323.3-2001



Table 7-4 Summary of odour emission rates used in the modelling

Run 2a (March 2006)

Run 1 (December 2007)

Source Source Type

Area(m2) Specific Odour Emission Rate

(OU.m3/s/m2 or OU.m3/s)

Primary Pump Station Scrubber Outlet Point - 0 0 Screening House Scrubber Outlet Point - 0 0 Screening House Effluent Channel Area 50.7 2.32 2.32 Pista Grit Tanks Area 229 0.81 0.81 Aeration Tanks 1 and 2 Area 957 0.12 0.12 New Aeration Tank 3 Area 478.5 - 0.12 New Aeration Feed Splitter Box Area 45 - 1.62 RAS Pumping Chamber Area 9.3 7.9 7.9 New Clarifier Feed Splitter Box Area 48.5 - 0.12 Secondary Clarifier 1 Area 989.3 0.05 0.05 Secondary Clarifier 2 Area 989.3 0.05 0.05 Secondary Clarifier 3 Area 989.3 0.05 0.05 New Secondary Clarifier 4 Area 989.3 - 0.05 Secondary pump station Area 10 0 0 ABF Soil Bed Filter Area 690 2.80 2.80 Biofilter for Primary Pump Station and Screenings House Area 651 8.3 7.68

Ocean Outfall Chamber Vent Point - 698 698 Fugitive emissions from west door of screenings house (closest to administration building)

Volume - 865.68 865.68




Figure 7-1 Predicted Existing Odour 99th percentile level (OU) results of modelling undertaken in 2006

Figure 7-1 indicates that with the operation of the existing soil bed filter and biofilter, the site will have a negligible odour impact on sensitive receptors.

7.3.2 Impact Assessment Vehicle Emissions Exhaust emissions from earth-moving machinery on site and truck movements to and from the site will occur during the construction phase of the Project. The construction period for this Project is approximately one and a half years, therefore, these impacts will only be of a temporary nature and are unlikely to alter the local and/or regional air quality.

Dust Emissions Dust has the potential to be generated during the earthworks associated with the Stage 2 Upgrade. Dry soils may be blown from exposed areas, soil excavations, stockpiles, machinery movements and access roads and may reduce air quality locally, particularly during windy periods. Dust associated with construction activities at the WWTW site will be transitory in nature and limited to the construction phases of the project.

380000 380500 381000 381500 382000 382500 383000 383500 384000 384500 West to East (m) AMG coordinates Zone 56

6351500

6352000

6352500

6353000

6353500

6354000

6354500

Newcastle SewageTreatment Works

PACIFIC

OCEAN

MEREWETHER MEREWETHER

HEIGHTS

GLENROCK STATE RECREATION AREA

Weather station



Dust emissions from the Project are not expected to change from the current levels once operation of the Stage 2 Upgrade commences as exposed areas will be re-vegetated or covered by structures or roads.

Odour Emissions – Operation Revised odour modelling was undertaken in December 2007 (revised from March 2005 and September 2006 results) that incorporated the anticipated conditions resulting from the biofilter upgrade (from previous modelling) and modified the model to account for the installation of a fourth clarifier, an additional aeration tank, an aeration feed splitter box and a clarifier feed splitter box that are being installed as part of the Project. The results of the model are presented in Figure 7-2.

Figure 7-2 Predicted Stage 2 99th percentile odour levels (OU) based on nose-response-time average

NSW DECC has recently indicated that predicted odour concentrations should be reported as integers. In rounding the results to the nearest whole integer, the integer values of odour units detected at the 10 receptors analysed were 0, as can be seen above in Figure 7-2. The modelling concluded that the predicted odour

380000 380500 381000 381500 382000 382500 383000 383500 384000 384500

West to East (m) AMG coordinates Zone 56

6351500

6352000

6352500

6353000

6353500

6354000

6354500

1

2

3

4 5

6 7

8

9

10

Newcastle SewageTreatment Works

PACIFIC

OCEAN

MEREWETHER

MEREWETHER HEIGHTS

GLENROCK STATE RECREATION AREA

Weather station (0 ou)

(0 ou)

(0 ou)

(0 ou) (0 ou)

(0 ou)(0 ou)

(0 ou)

(0 ou)

(0 ou)




concentrations at the receptors from the Stage 2 Burwood Beach WWTW would essentially be zero.

CALPUFF modelling indicated that the DECC odour assessment criteria was met at the nearest sensitive receptors upon upgrade of the plant, and thus additional odour control measures were not required.

Odour Emissions – Construction The ABF tower media replacement works will require the removal of the tower cover to access the tower. With the cover removed the tower’s odour control facility cannot operate. These works are likely to result in an increase in the level of odours generated by the plant. The likely odour impacts on the surrounding community would be during the actual removal of media from the ABF tower, and in particular, during the removal of the lower levels of media that may contain residual biomass.

The ABF media replacement works are expected to follow the schedule below:

� Deactivation of media – up to three months

� Removal of media – approximately one month

� Replacement of media – approximately two months

� Re-fit of existing or fitting of new roof – three months

� Recommissioning of ABF Tower – one month.

Some of these processes can be undertaken in conjunction with one another. The ABF media replacement works are anticipated to take six to ten months.

To minimise these potential odour impacts proactive community consultation and specific mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the following section.

It is envisaged that odour issues will be minimal for the other construction works associated with the Stage 2 Upgrade at Burwood Beach WWTW.

7.3.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction phase of the project to minimise potential air impacts:

� All vehicle exhaust systems will be maintained to ensure compliance with the POE(Clean Air) Regs.

- Earthmoving equipment and on-site vehicles will be fitted with exhaust controls

- The contractor will be required to check that all equipment is properly maintained so that unacceptable exhaust emissions do not occur



� The contractor will commit to the removal of any vehicle or item of mobile equipment from on-site activities which is observed not to comply with NSW DECC guidelines

� Maintenance and servicing of plant and equipment will be undertaken as required by manufacturer’s specifications (this will be undertaken offsite) this will enable the plant to operate at maximum efficiency

� Regular checking of emissions from equipment and plant will be undertaken

� Vehicles will not be left idling when not required

� Exposed surfaces or any potentially dust-generating areas will be watered down, for example unsealed access roads and soil stockpiles

� Soil stockpiles will be covered with plastic sheets if deemed necessary during high winds

� Vegetation clearing will only occur where necessary

� Exposed areas will be stabilised with grass species as soon as practicable after exposure

� Trucks transporting construction material will be covered when entering and leaving the construction site

� Access roads will be sealed where possible and speed limits will be determined and signposted to minimise dust production

� Access to the construction sites will be controlled and vehicles and machinery will be kept to well defined areas

� Standard health and safety procedures for construction employees will be implemented at the construction site.

The following measures are relevant to the ABF Tower media replacement works:

� Notify local residents before the works commence

� Odour management plan is to be implemented. The plan will include deactivation of the media involving replacement of the influent feed with potable water or secondary effluent for at least 3 weeks to significantly reduce the active biomass population followed by at least 3 weeks for the timber media to dry out

� Review effectiveness of the plan prior to removing the cover

� Installation of a temporary cover during times when no work is being undertaken but the ABF tower still contains old media if deemed necessary.




7.4 NoiseBridges Acoustics were engaged to prepare a noise report for the Stage 2 Upgrade. The report entitled ‘Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works Stage 2 Upgrade – Noise Impact Statement’ is provided in Appendix F.

7.4.1 Existing Environment This section describes the receiver area for the Burwood Beach WWTW and the current background noise levels for the site.

Receiver Areas The closest residences are located on the north eastern side of Hickson Street and Scenic Drive and are approximately 530 m from the closest equipment on the WWTW site. Most of the other Merewether residences are located over 650 m from the site. All closest residences would have at least a partial view of the site if not for relatively dense woodland within the Glenrock SCA.

Merewether Heights Primary School is located on the northern side of Scenic Drive approximately 750 m north of the site, while Scenic Lodge is located almost 1100 m west of and overlooking the site. The nearest noise sensitive receiver to the south is the Glenrock Scout Centre on the southern side of Glenrock Lagoon approximately 1100 m from the site.

Background Noise Levels Background and ambient noise levels were measured at one location north of the site for a period of 14 days. The survey included continuous noise measurements using an unattended noise logger installed for the entire period, supplemented by short term observations during the day, evening and night.

These results were used to determine Rating Background Levels for the day, evening and night periods according to the procedures described in the EPA’s Industrial Noise Policy (INP).

Table 7-5 shows a summary of the results including the weekly median Assessment Background Levels for each day, evening and night period.

Table 7-5 Summary of Noise Monitoring Results, Scenic Drive, dBA

Time Period, Percentile Day Evening Night

L90 Leq L90 Leq L90 LeqWeekly Median 43.3 58.4 40.8 56.9 37.7 51.3

Adopted Background Level 43 - 37 - 35 -



The following observations were made with respect to the impacts on noise levels in the area:

� Ambient (LAeq) noise levels at the monitoring location were affected by traffic, primarily on Scenic Drive, during all time periods, other sources including wind, urban hum, ocean surf and existing WWTW equipment

� Background noise levels were primarily controlled by traffic during the day and some of the evening, with some insect noise, ocean surge and urban hum during the evening

� WWTW equipment was not audible during the day but ranged from barely to clearly audible during the evening at the noise logger location

� The existing WWTW was the main contributor to background noise levels during the night, with a fairly minor contribution from insects, urban hum and from traffic (from main roads including the Pacific Highway and Glebe Road further to the north).

As daytime background noise levels are controlled by traffic noise, no adjustments are required to measured levels during this time period. Therefore, the adopted background level for the day is 43LA90, 15min.

A conservative background noise level of 37 LA90,15min is adopted for the evening period as a reasonable estimate of the level that would have been measured in the absence of the site and insects.

Based on observations it is considered reasonable to adopt a conservative background noise level of 35 LA90,15min during the night to represent urban hum from the Newcastle area combined with ocean surf noise, in the absence of the WWTW and seasonal insect noise.

Background and ambient noise measurements were not taken at the Glenrock Scout Camp. As the Camp is located relatively close to the Pacific Ocean, surf noise would be at least 35 LA90,15min during the night and the background levels adopted for Merewether residences could reasonably be applied to this receiver.

Existing Operational Noise Sources Noise levels produced by major sources on the WWTW site were measured during a site visit on 7 November 2007. Refer to Table 7-5 for existing noise levels.

The analyser’s microphone was typically traversed at constant speed over accessible areas of a measurement surface around the source generally in accordance with AS1217.5




7.4.2 Impact Assessment Site Noise Modelling Noise sources associated with the existing and proposed future WWTW have been modelled using RTA Technology Environmental Noise Model (ENM) computer software. ENM requires a range of input data to calculate received noise levels, such as:

� Ground contours to indicate ground elevation and type

� Noise source locations and each source’s sound power spectrum

� Weather conditions, particularly wind speed and direction and vertical temperature gradient.

The program then calculates received noise levels in the form of noise contours in the area around the site, or noise levels at specified receiver points.

Operational Noise Noise criteria for this assessment have been developed using procedures in the DECC’s INP which recommends methods to determine background noise levels and to derive appropriate operational noise criteria for an industrial site near noise-sensitive receivers such as residences. Both the intrusive and amenity noise criteria are normally referred to in each of the day, evening and night time periods and are described below.

Intrusive Criteria Intrusive criteria are set 5 decibels above the Rating Background Level (RBL) in each time period and are designed to limit the relative audibility of an industrial site.

Amenity Criteria Amenity limits recommended in the INP depend on existing industrial noise levels and the nature of the receiver area. The amenity limits are designed to control the total or cumulative level of industrial noise at a sensitive receiver such as a residence. Amenity criteria are set to the amenity limits in cases where limited industrial noise is currently received, or to lower levels to ensure the cumulative impact of existing and proposed noise sources does not exceed the limit for each time period.

Merewether residences and Scenic Lodge located off Scenic Drive are conservatively classified as suburban receivers according to the definitions of each area in the INP. The Glenrock Scout Camp is classified as a rural residence for the purposes of this assessment.

Merewether Heights Primary School is assigned an internal noise criterion of 35 LAeq,1hr during normal school hours, which is approximately equivalent to an external noise criterion of 45 LAeq,1hr on the basis that most building facades offer a reduction of 10 dBA with the windows open. Evening and night noise criteria do not apply to the school.



Table 7-6 shows intrusive and amenity criteria applied to each receiver area.

Table 7-6 Adopted Operational Noise Criteria, LAeq

Intrusive Criteria, LAeq,15min Amenity Criteria, LAeq,period Receiver Area Day Evening Night Day Evening NightMerewether residences 48 42 40 55 45 40 Glenrock Scout Camp 48 42 40 50 45 40 Merewether Hts Public School - - - 45 - -

The assessment point for each receiver property is defined in the INP as the closest or potentially most affected point within 30 m of the residence, or at the property boundary if the boundary is closer than 30 m from the residence. The intrusive criteria are lower or equivalent to the amenity criteria at all receivers and are therefore the primary criteria applied to this assessment at all receivers except the school.

Proposed Operational Noise Sources Noise levels emitted by most site components would not appreciably change or would have an insignificant effect on total noise emissions from the site. The following components of the Project are likely to generate noise and have been included in the noise model:

� A third aeration tank

� A third operational blower to serve the new tank

� A fourth clarifier

� The new RAS pumping station.

Noise levels from the new aeration tank, blower and clarifier are assumed to be similar to existing equipment, while noise from the new pumping station is assumed to be similar to noise levels produced by the existing sludge pumps.

Sound power levels from existing and proposed equipment are shown in Table 7-7 and have been included in the initial noise model.




Table 7-7 Modelled Sound Power Levels, Existing and Proposed Sources

Linear Scale A-ScaleSource Total TotalScreen building 95 92

Screen building fan 84 76

Main fan 94 85

Grit stirrer and pump 86 84

Sludge pump pit 87 84

Aeration duct and tanks 109 107

Blower house 117 113

Clarifier 98 96

New aeration tank 106 104

New blower 114 110

New clarifier 93 91

Table 7-7 shows the existing blower house is 6 dBA louder than all other sources, followed by the aeration tanks with the main noise source associated with the tanks being the aeration air duct.

Figure 7-3, Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5 show the predicted noise levels as noise contours for those sources listed in Table 7-7, in the absence of any specific noise control measures being applied to the site.



Figure 7-3 Stage 2 Noise Contours, Day, No Noise Control, LAeq,15min (Source: Bridges, 2008)




Figure 7-4 Stage 2 Noise Contours, Evening, No Noise Control, LAeq,15min



Figure 7-5 Stage 2 Noise Contours, Night, No Noise Control, LAeq,15min

Predicted operational noise levels are summarised in Table 7-8 and compared to relevant noise criteria. Entries in bold font highlight predicted exceedances of the criteria.

Table 7-8 Summary of Estimated Received Noise Levels, No Noise Control, LAeq,15min

Predicted Received Level Noise Criteria Receiver

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night

Most affected Merewether residence 36 43 41 48 42 40

Glenrock Scout Camp <30 <30 <30 48 42 40

Merewether Heights Public School <35 - - 45 - -

Results in Table 7-8 calculated under prevailing weather conditions are consistent with noise monitoring results described in the background noise level section which




show the WWTW can produce up to 44 LAeq,15min during noise enhancing weather conditions during the evening and 41 LAeq,15min during the night. As the Project includes a relatively minor increase in equipment operating on the site compared to existing equipment, proposed noise levels from the upgraded WWTW would be approximately 1 dBA above existing noise levels assuming no specific noise control measures are applied to the site.

Table 7-8 shows a predicted 1 dBA exceedance of the evening noise criterion at the most affected Merewether residence and similarly a 1 dBA exceedance of the night criterion which would occur at a few Scenic Drive residences immediately west of Charlotte Street. All other receivers including the Scout Camp and School are expected to receive acceptable noise levels compared to relevant criteria.

With the implementation of the mitigation measures on the blower house, including providing the blowers acoustically enclosed units, a reduction of 5 dBA in blower house noise levels would achieve an overall received noise level reduction of 3 dBA and would result in noise levels remaining at least 2 dBA below the criteria. Received noise levels with recommended noise control measures in place are shown in Table 7-9.

Table 7-9 Summary of Estimated Received Noise Levels With Recommended Noise Control, LAeq,15min.

Predicted Received Level Noise Criteria Receiver

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night

Most affected Merewether residence 33 40 38 48 42 40

Glenrock Scout Camp <30 <30 <30 48 42 40

Merewether Heights Public School <35 - - 45 - -

Construction Noise Work associated with the project is assumed to be carried out primarily during the daytime, although some shutdown work may occasionally be required at times of low effluent flow during the night.

During the ABF tower media replacement some night time works (approximately one week) will be undertaken, this is necessary to complete the work within the shortest timeframe possible and minimise odour impacts. These works have the potential to cause minor exceedances in the night time noise criteria.

A construction period of approximately 18 months is expected to be required for the entire project, although most civil and mechanical work that is likely to be audible at any residence would occur for only a part of this period.



Noise criteria for a construction period of over six months are not specifically recommended by the DECC and it is normal practice to adopt intrusive criteria 5 dBA above the background noise level for extended periods of construction work.

Based on the measured background noise level of 43 LA90,15min, a daytime construction criterion of 48 LAeq,15min is adopted at all residences. It is usually accepted that construction work can be carried out at other times of the day or night, or on Sundays or public holidays, providing noise produced by construction work does not exceed normal operational noise criteria for these periods or is inaudible at any residence. Construction criteria are therefore equal to operational noise criteria listed in Table 7-6.

Construction criteria are considered to apply at any residential boundary and would reasonably apply at the school boundary. Construction work is, by its nature, a relatively short term activity. Occasional exceedances of the above criteria for specific well-defined activities are generally acceptable to the community and the DECC during normal construction hours.

Construction Noise Sources Construction work required to complete the project would vary significantly during the construction period as various components of the WWTW are upgraded. A reasonable worst-case construction scenario is likely to include the following noise sources and sound power levels:

� Concrete breaker 117 dBA

� Jackhammer 112 dBA

� Backhoe 102 dBA

� Truck x 2 103 dBA

� Mobile crane 113 dBA

� Compressor, welder x 4 108 dBA

� Concrete truck x 2 111 dBA

� Total construction sound power level 120 dBA

A sound power level of 120 dBA is therefore assumed to occur on the site during the loudest periods of construction noise with an excavator and concrete breaker operating, although noise levels in the absence of the concrete breaker would be substantially lower. A concrete breaker is expected to be required to remove parts of existing concrete structures such as flow channels and splitters, and would only be used during the day.

Construction Noise Levels Noise propagation calculations indicate a received noise level in the range 46 to 49 LAeq,15min at closest Merewether receivers and at Merewether Heights School with all




listed construction sources operating simultaneously on the site, compared to a daytime criterion of 48 LAeq,15min at residences and 50 LAeq,1hr at the school. The Scout Camp is shielded from the site by a substantial ridge and is therefore expected to receive a construction noise level well below 40 dBA.

Construction noise levels are expected to remain within the residential construction criterion for much of the time and to slightly exceed the criterion during occasional busy periods. As the construction noise calculations assume all equipment operating simultaneously and include the concrete breaker and a jackhammer, noise levels close to the construction noise criteria are not expected to occur for a significant proportion of the time and construction noise would be inaudible for much of the time due to the masking effect of Scenic Drive traffic noise.

A pile driver is expected to be required on an intermittent basis. Impact drivers can produce a sound power level of up to 124 LA1,1min which can exceed the residential construction criterion by 5 dBA depending on weather conditions, while vibrating drivers are generally 8 to 10 dBA quieter and are unlikely to cause exceedances of the criteria. Pile drivers are expected to be used during the start of the construction period (during installation of the sheet-pile wall) for a limited time, this noise impact will therefore be of a temporary nature.

Construction noise levels in the absence of a pile driver or concrete breaker are expected to be 2 dBA lower than the calculated levels listed above and are expected to meet the construction noise criteria at all receivers.

Construction Vibration Ground vibration can be caused by particular construction activities such as pile driving, excavating hard rock, concrete breaking and explosive blasting. Construction work during the day recommends acceleration level of 0.3m/s2 root-mean-squared (RMS) in the frequency range 4Hz to 8Hz and higher acceleration levels outside that frequency range.

The recommended maximum construction related vibration of 5 mm/s is considered appropriate during the day.

Construction work during the evening and night is subject to significantly lower vibration criteria (0.2mm/s), this recommendation would result in vibration levels being imperceptible at any receiver.

Ground vibration due to construction work would not be perceptible at any residence and a detailed assessment of this issue is not required.

Road Traffic Noise Construction work would generate traffic movements on the Pacific Highway, Scenic Drive and on the site access road. Changes in noise level due to construction traffic on public roads are assessed to the DECC’s Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN) (EPA, 1999).



A criteria of 60 dB(A)Leq,15hr during the day and 55 dB(A)Leq,9hr during the night apply to both Scenic Drive and Pacific Highway.

Traffic movements would change from day to day and from one hour to the next depending on the work being carried out at the time. Civil work typically generates the most construction traffic, particularly if significant quantities of materials such as concrete are imported to the site or soil is removed, therefore a reasonable worst case scenario would represent a period of relatively intense civil work.

Construction of the third aeration tank or the fourth clarifier would require significant quantities of concrete, probably at the rate of 4 to 6 trucks (8 to 12 movements) per hour which represents a likely worst case for construction traffic. Calculations based on a trapezoidal time trace as each truck passes a residence located 15 m from the travel lane, assuming the truck is travelling at 40 km/hr past the residence, gives a received traffic noise level in the range 55 to 57 LAeq.

If existing traffic noise levels have reached the criterion, additional traffic associated with the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.8 dBA which is within the 2 dB allowance recommended in the ECRTN.

No change to staffing levels during operation are anticipated as a result of this Project, therefore an assessment of operational traffic flows is not included in this report.

ConclusionThis assessment of environmental noise and vibration issues associated with the Project has shown minor exceedances of relevant noise criteria may occur in the absence of any noise controls applied to the site. It is acknowledged that this conclusion is based on worst case site noise levels under noise enhancing weather conditions and on conservative criteria based on reduced background noise levels. Nevertheless, operational noise control measures are recommended for the blower house (Section 7.4.3).

Construction noise levels are expected to be close to the criteria during worst case construction activity including simultaneous civil and mechanical work with a number of machines operating. Actual construction noise levels are expected to be significantly below the criteria for most of the time and no specific construction noise measures are required or have been recommended (excluding pile driver mitigation measures).

Ground vibration levels likely to be generated during the construction period are expected to be imperceptible at all receivers.

Construction related road traffic noise on Scenic Drive and the Pacific Highway is likely to remain within relevant criteria.




Subject to suitable noise control measures being adopted for the blower house this assessment shows the Project is expected to produce acceptable environmental noise and vibration levels.

7.4.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade:

� Standard construction hours will be from Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm and Saturday 8am to 1pm

� Construction work will only be undertaken on-site on Sundays and at night when necessary, all residents will be notified by HWC of any audible works to be undertaken during the night or on Sundays

� Night time construction work will be minimised in consultation with HWC

� A noise management plan will be developed during the detailed design stages, the plan will outline the resident notification procedures

� If during normal construction hours exceedances of the construction noise criteria are expected for example during pile driving or large concrete pours, the community will be given prior notice of the activity, expected duration and approximate noise level

� A pile driver is expected to be required on an intermittent basis during construction. It is recommended that vibrating drivers are used on this site although it is acknowledged that impact drivers may be required

� The construction noise objective for the project will be to manage noise from construction activities (as measured by a LA10 (15 minute) descriptor) so as not to exceed the background LA90 noise level by more than 5 dB(A) at any sensitive receiver

� Noise emissions from plant and equipment operated on site during the Project will be minimised by installing and maintaining, wherever practicable, efficient silencers, low-noise mufflers, and replacement of reversing alarms on vehicles with alternative silent measures, such as flashing lights.

During operation the following option will be implemented to reduce blower house noise:

� The existing blowers will be placed into an acoustically enclosed unit inside the existing building. The new blowers will also be enclosed in an acoustically enclosed unit in a new building. This will also reduce noise levels experienced by staff working inside the building.



7.5 Human Health

7.5.1 Existing Environment Beachwatch

The potential health risk presented by potential chemical contamination in the Burwood Beach WWTW discharge (eg heavy metals, organic compounds) by the consumption of seafood has been assessed by bioaccumulation studies. The results of those studies have shown that levels of heavy metals and organic compounds in fish and oysters near the Burwood Beach outfall are not at levels that are considered to cause human health or environmental concern (see Section 6.8 for more details).

The risk to bathers presented by potential microbiological contaminants in the Burwood Beach WWTW discharge has been assessed using the Beachwatch program. Bathing water quality monitoring has been undertaken at eight local beaches since 1997. The data is used to assess the implications of the Burwood Beach discharges on bathing water quality at nearby beaches. The beaches are: Nobby’s, Newcastle, Bar, Merewether, Burwood North, Burwood South, Glenrock and Dudley.

Monitoring involves collecting water samples from between the flags (or at the most frequently used part of the beach if there are no flags) at least 5 times each month (samples collected every 6 days).

Beachwatch uses two types of indicator bacteria: faecal coliforms and enterococci. Indicator bacteria do not cause infection but are indicators of the possible presence of waterborne pathogens that pose the most significant risks to human health.

Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7 show a summary of the faecal coliform and enterococci levels from 1997 to 2006 at the eight local beaches in relation to the Beachwatch guideline values.

The results indicate that faecal coliform and enterococci levels at the bathing beaches within the vicinity of the Burwood Beach WWTW outfall have been well below the Beachwatch water quality limits throughout the entire monitoring period.

In 2006 the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released the “Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters” in which various criteria were described to assess recreational water quality. The preferred microbiological indicator was enterococcus. Assessment criteria are split into four categories based on defined levels of risk: Category A is the best quality while Category D is the worst. The 95th percentile monitoring result is used for this assessment. Figure 7-8 shows the annual 95th percentiles of enterococcus levels from 1997 to 2006 in relation to the NHMRC guideline categories.




The results show that Hunter beach water quality based on the new guideline (NHMRC, 2006) is generally either category A or Category B, with wet weather having a significant effect.

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

A more detailed assessment of the potential health risk due to Burwood Beach WWTW discharge was undertaken to address a concern raised by the Community Reference Group.

A screening-level quantitative microbial risk assessment has been undertaken for the Burwood Beach WWTP outfall (CH2M HILL, 2008). The objective of the assessment was to characterise the risk due to microbial pathogens (ie bacteria, viruses, protozoa) present in the discharge rather than bacterial indicators in relation to the NHMRC “Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water” (2006).

The screening level risk assessment has found that during median, or typical, dilution conditions the discharge of effluent and biosolids does not present a health risk to bathers. However, under the 95th percentile dilution conditions the discharge may present an elevated health risk to bathers based on the broad assumptions made in the assessment.

There are significant uncertainties in the assessment due to the lack of site specific data and the study recommends that a more comprehensive risk assessment is performed based on site specific data in order to more robustly characterise the potential risk from the discharge. Further investigations are required to:

� Measure pathogen loads in the Burwood Beach WWTW discharge

� Measure actual decay rates of pathogens under local conditions

� Undertaking a detailed health risk assessment using the above data.

The assessment has been reviewed by the Department of Health and they agree with the recommendation that further investigations are warranted to characterise the health risk from the discharge.

Hunter Water has commenced a detailed quantitative microbial health risk assessment. The assessment is being undertaken by Dr David Roser of the Centre for Water and Waste Technologies of the University of New South Wales who is the pre-eminent expert in the field in Australia. The results of the assessment will be presented to the Community Reference Group and Regulators and will assist the development of a preferred long term strategy for the plant that will form the Stage 3 Upgrade.



Figure 7-6 Beachwatch Coliform Results from 1997 to 2006

Figure 7-7 Beachwatch Enterococcus Results from 1997 to 2006




Source: Hunter Water Corporation, July 2007

Figure 7-8 Beachwatch 95th Percentile Enterococcus Results from 1997 to 2006

7.5.2 Impact Assessment There is currently no clear link between any potential human health risks and the ocean outfall. The Stage 2 Upgrade will not significantly change the quality of the effluent and biological solids discharged.

7.5.3 Mitigation Measures Monitoring of the outfall and at local beaches as per Beachwatch protocols will continue.

7.6 Hazard and Risk Analysis A Construction Hazard Assessment Implication Review (CHAIR) workshop was held to reduce construction, maintenance, repair and demolition safety risks associated with design of the Stage 2 Upgrade. The CHAIR workshop identified a number of risks that will be addressed in detailed design.

7.6.1 Existing Environment A number of hazards currently exist at Burwood Beach WWTW. These hazards include:

� The Burwood Beach WWTW currently stores some chemicals that are considered to be environmentally hazardous

� There is potential for raw sewage overflows around the site



� There is a potential for operators to come into contact with effluent

� Bushland surrounding the Burwood Beach WWTW are occasionally subject to bushfires

� The original pump station and screenings house are currently not used but are potentially unsafe work areas due to the age and physical condition of the buildings.

All maintenance and operational activities currently undertaken on site are performed in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.

7.6.2 Impact Assessment The storage and handling of chemicals at the WWTW during construction and operation poses a potential risk to operators, workers and the environment. The Stage 2 Upgrade will result in having to store additional volumes of sodium hypochlorite solution which will be used in the new chlorination system to disinfect effluent.

Exposure of the community to sewage-contaminated waters poses the risk of direct or indirect exposure to pathogens or chemicals in sewage. The potential for sewage to reach local creeks increases during wet weather when the risk of partially treated discharges and overflows increases. Reducing the potential for contaminants to reach surface water is particularly important for this area as the local beaches are used for primary and secondary contact recreation, such as swimming and fishing. The improved stormwater system being built as part of the Stage 2 Upgrade will minimise this impact.

Construction workers may be at risk to exposure of treated or untreated effluent when they are working in and around the site. Throughout the operational phase, disinfected secondary effluent is proposed to be used within the process units (i.e. screens washing, and grit traps). Disinfected secondary treated effluent will also be used throughout the WWTW where human exposure is possible. Disinfected secondary effluent will not be used if it does not meet TSS criteria and E. Coli criteria of <30 mg/L and <100 cfu/100 mL respectively. To reduce human exposure to recycled water the use of controls such as training and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be used.

The likelihood of bushfires impacting on the site is minimal due to the site and the main buildings being within a cleared area containing limited vegetation other than grass (which is regularly maintained). Site buildings are also regularly maintained and gutters are kept free of combustible vegetative debris.

The construction techniques to be used during the construction period are unlikely to create fires or impact on the existing frequency of fires in the area. Measures will be adopted to control the performance of “hot works” during declared bushfire seasons and on declared total fire ban days.




The original pump station and screenings house may pose a safety risk due to their condition and age.

Construction of the proposed works will require the excavation of a number of areas and trenches for the installation of plant and pipework. Should a pipe fail or heavy rainfall occur there is the potential for these excavations to become flooded, posing a threat to construction workers.

7.6.3 Mitigation Measures During the construction of the WWTW, it is the contractor’s responsibility to obtain the relevant approvals and ensure that the use, storage, transportation and disposal of all chemicals and chemical wastes meet the requirements of the POEO Act and the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985.

The following specific mitigation measures will be implemented onsite during the construction and operational period:

� All requirements of the OH&S Act will be fulfilled during the construction works

� Personal protective equipment will be used at all times by all staff onsite

� Public access to the site will be prohibited

� Combustible material will be removed from the construction site as soon as possible to minimise any risk of starting or fuelling bushfires

� Access to the site will be granted when necessary for the purpose of fire fighting

� Staff will be adequately trained in using fire fighting equipment and equipment will be made readily available on site

� During the declared bushfire season in NSW the following measures will be undertaken when performing “hot works” within the boundary of the treatment plant:

- A check of fire warnings and total fire ban status preceding any hot works

- The use of grinding, welding, spark or heat producing equipment will be undertaken within an area that is clear of flammable materials (including grasses or vegetation) or, where this is not practicable, in accordance with the total fire ban operating conditions identified below

- Any such equipment will be placed, after use, in an area that is non-flammable (i.e. not directly upon grasses) and does not have flammable materials within it until such plant or equipment has cooled down

- A fire check will be undertaken on completion of the hot works

� During declared total fire ban days the following additional measures will be observed:



- Approval will be sought from the NSW Fire Brigade before undertaking hot works

- Hot works performed within the boundary of the treatment plant will have a water cart or similar fire response mechanism in the immediate vicinity of the works

- Any hot works will have a nominated fire-spotter observing the works with immediate access to the provided water cart (or equivalent) to enable an immediate response to any combustion resulting from the works

- A fire check will be performed over a period of 30 minutes from cessation of use of the equipment

� Any chemicals that are required onsite during the upgrade that are considered to be potentially hazardous may require assessment to determine the offsite risk to people, property and the environment

� Any chemicals that are required onsite during the upgrade that are considered to be potentially hazardous will be handled, stored and used as per manufacturers specifications and Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2000

� Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals used and stored on site will be kept in proximity to the storage area, with copies available at defined reference locations (eg contractor’s compound, first aid station and main site building)

� The original pump station and screenings house will be partitioned off by the use of barriers to limit access in and around these buildings

� An emergency response plan will be developed, detailing rescue techniques for construction workers caught in flooded excavations

� Prior to commencement of work on site, each construction worker, contractor, sub-contractor, and visitor will receive a site safety induction.

7.7 Indigenous Heritage Environmental Resource Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) was commissioned to conduct a Stage 1 Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage appraisal (Appendix G), which consisted of the following:

� A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) Aboriginal sites database at the DECC

� Review of landscape character and land-use history which influences patterning of aboriginal sites

� Liaison with the Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council (by letter and telephone)

� Archaeological familiarisation with site




� Identification of Aboriginal heritage issues warranting Aboriginal heritage assessment.

The study area included the fenced area of Burwood Beach WWTW and the area immediately outside the fence on the south-west and south-east boundaries, which is a total area of approximately 7 ha.

An indigenous archaeological assessment was also undertaken in 2005 by McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (McCardle, 2005) that assessed the environmental and archaeological context of the project area associated with the Mayfield to Burwood Pipeline project.

7.7.1 Existing Environment The location, nature and distribution of Aboriginal cultural materials in a landscape are strongly influenced by environmental factors such as topography, geology, landforms, climate, geomorphology, hydrology and the associated soils and vegetation (Hughes and Sullivan 1984).

Environmental factors also affect the likelihood of artefacts surviving and influence the likelihood of cultural sites being identified during ground surveys. The regional and local environment surrounding Burwood Beach WWTW would have provided a range of resources, such as raw materials, food and water for Aboriginal populations. This land would therefore have been suitable for occupation.

Natural environmental processes such as erosion can be expected to have moderately impacted upon archaeological artefacts within the area, changing the horizontal and vertical relationship of artefacts and changing the artefact densities (McCardle, 2005). European land uses, such as the construction of Burwood Beach WWTW, would have displaced cultural materials and caused significant disturbance within the area.

Regional Context A search of the National Parks and Wildlife Service’s (NPWS) Aboriginal Heritage Information Management Service (AHIMS) has shown that there are 39 known and listed Aboriginal sites within a five kilometre radius of Burwood Beach WWTW. The site types included 18 open campsites, 12 groove grinding sites, two middens, three potential archaeological deposits (PAD), two artefact sites and one PAD with shells. The approximate locations of the listed items are shown in Figure 7-9.

The items identified in Figure 7-9 are described in Table 7-10 below.

Table 7-10 Description of Aboriginal Site Register Results

DECC Aboriginal Site Register Reference

NumberDescription

38-4-0842 Isolated find - tuff flake

38-4-0843 Artefact Scatter – retouched flake and tuff flake



38-4-0045 Open camps

38-4-0046 Open camps

Sullivan (1982) and Dyall (1972) both concluded that, in a very general basis, coastal sites are typically found on the interface between the sand-dunes and the coastal scrub zone, usually in close proximity to rocky platform coastal formations capable of supporting shellfish.

Local Context The study area is located on lower Newcastle coal measures including shales, conglomerates, sandstones and tuff, including outcrops of tuff suitable for Aboriginal stone tool manufacture located on nearby beach headlands. Cobble sized angular fragments of tuff occur within the soil within the immediate area and would have provided tool making material. Soils otherwise comprise of gravely duplex profile derived from weathering conglomerates.

Two locally incised second order creeks flow either side of the WWTW towards Burwood Beach, converging to the south of the works before flowing through an ephemeral lagoon behind the beach barrier dune. The banks of the creeks have been compromised by past earthworks and the eastern creek has been channelised and pumped under the WWTW in one section.

The study area falls within the traditional lands of the Awabakal people whose customs and traditions were recorded by Reverend Lancelot Threlkeld. Aboriginal connection to Glenrock SCA is documented within the Glenrock SCA Conservation Management Plan (Griffin NRM, 2003), which documents an extensive Aboriginal consultation process. The plan states that:

‘The Aboriginal archaeological sites of Glenrock link with a rich regional collection of Aboriginal sites, most of which have been discovered within the context of development work. Sites at Glenrock include middens, lithic scatters, including probable campsites, hatchet head grinding grooves, stone procurement areas and Aboriginal pathway.’

The southern and western areas of the site were significantly disturbed during the construction of the clarifiers during 1992. Once these were constructed the surrounding land was reconstructed, resulting in a completely altered topography and disturbed ground surface on the site. This disturbance extended to Murdering Gully and the creek on the eastern side of the site.

Hunter Water CorporationBurwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 UpgradeReview of Environmental Factors

Ref: 356448September 2008

Figure 7.9 - DECC Aboriginal Site Register Results

¯S

ourc

e: E

RM

, 200

7 (D

EC

, 200

7)



Darwala-Lia undertook a study in 2000 that included the majority of the project area. As part of the study a foot survey was undertaken of the pipeline route between Merewether Golf Course and Burwood Beach WWTW. This survey resulted in the recording of nine archaeological sites and three indigenous plant resources. These sites were all detected in areas of erosion disturbance and therefore deemed to be out of context, however, as a result of these findings it was recommended that members of the Aboriginal community monitor all sub-surface works.

McCardle undertook a foot survey adjacent to Burwood Beach WWTW in 2005. Two artefacts were found within the survey site, one isolated artefact and an artefact scatter. Both of these artefacts were found in highly disturbed landscapes and McCardle concluded that there is a low likelihood that sub-surface artefacts would remain.

7.7.2 Impact Assessment The appraisal by ERM concluded that no Aboriginal sites would be impacted by the Stage 2 Upgrade and that there is no potential for undetected Aboriginal sites to occur as the entire site is a transformed landscape.

Construction works associated with development of the Stage 2 Upgrade are to be carried out entirely within the existing fence-line of Burwood Beach WWTW. This area has already been heavily disturbed during past construction periods and construction is unlikely to unearth any Aboriginal sites.

7.7.3 Mitigation Measures Management of cultural heritage items found at Burwood Beach WWTW site will be determined on the basis of their assessed significance and the likely impacts of the development.

Staff working on site will be instructed to stop work immediately on identification of any Aboriginal artefact. The DECC and the Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council will be notified and work will not recommence until advice from these groups has been obtained.

All personnel working on the site will receive induction training regarding their responsibilities under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Section 90 (1) of the Act states that it is an offence to knowingly destroy, deface or damage, or cause or permit the destruction or defacement of or damage to, an object or Aboriginal place without first obtaining the consent of the NPWS.

7.8 Non-Indigenous Heritage The following section is an assessment of non-indigenous heritage at Burwood Beach WWTW and the surrounding area and the potential impacts of the Stage 2 Upgrade on the heritage significance of those items.




7.8.1 Existing Environment A search was undertaken of the NSW Heritage Office Heritage Database (http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_04.cfm) for the suburbs of Merewether, Merewether Heights, and Highfields in the LGA of Newcastle and the suburbs of Kahibah and Whitebridge in the LGA of Lake Macquarie. The searches revealed no items listed under on the State Heritage Register, under the Heritage Act 1977, within the vicinity of Burwood Beach WWTW (see Appendix H).

A search was also undertaken of the EPBC Act Register for a 2 kilometre buffer around Burwood Beach WWTW. The search reveals no Commonwealth Heritage Places and no places on the Register of the National Estate within the vicinity of the WWTW (see Appendix H).

The searches revealed the presence of a number of items listed under the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LEPs. The following is a brief discussion of each of these items. Items within the Burwood Beach WWTW that may potentially have heritage significance are also discussed.

Burwood Copper Smelter The Burwood Copper Smelter is listed as a heritage item under the Newcastle LEP. The remains of the Burwood Copper Smelter are predominantly located below ground, however some brick and slag scatter, along with areas of pavement are visible on the surface.

The copper smelter was constructed in 1846 by Dr James Mitchell who is noteworthy as the owner of the Stockton Cloth Factory and Newcastle’s first engineering works. The smelter was not commercially successful and operated only periodically until the early 1870s. The last known production of copper from the smelter was in 1891.

A study undertaken by Nexus Pty Ltd in 2005 (Nexus, 2005) identified a zone of archaeological importance associated with the Burwood Copper Smelter (Figure 7-10). The zone is located to the east-south-east of the Burwood Beach WWTW.



Figure 7-10 Zone of High Archaeological Potential (lined in red) (Nexus, 2005)

Bailey’s Orchard Bailey’s Orchard, also known as Glenrock State Conservation Area, is listed as a heritage item under the Newcastle LEP. The orchard starts to the south of the junction of Scenic Drive and Hickson Street. The orchard is located at the base of a precipice.

Fruit Packing Shed and Residence

The fruit packing shed and residence is listed as a heritage item under the Newcastle LEP. The item consists of two, single storey, weatherboard buildings with timber walls and corrugated iron rooves. The buildings remain intact, however, they are in a state of disrepair.




The buildings are thought to have been associated with Bailey’s Orchard and are located at 221 Scenic Drive. The shed and residence is located to the north-west of the Burwood Beach WWTW on the ridge that overlooks the WWTW.

Glenrock Railway and Mine Entrance Glenrock Railway, Mine Entrance and early coal mining sites are listed as heritage items under the Lake Macquarie LEP. These items are located within the Glenrock SCA.

Items within Burwood Beach WWTW The original pump station and screenhouse within Burwood Beach WWTW date back to 1908. These items are not listed on any heritage register, however, their age means that they may have heritage significance as they are over fifty years old and fall within the definition of ‘relic’ under the Heritage Act. The buildings may have historical significance as they are important in the course of the cultural history of the Newcastle area. The decommissioned and degraded nature of the buildings detracts from the heritage significance of the buildings.

7.8.2 Impact Assessment Development of the Stage 2 Upgrade will not impact on heritage items listed under the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie LEPs as none of these items are located within proximity to the WWTW.

Construction will not occur within the immediate vicinity of the original pump station and screenhouse. Impacts on the heritage significance of these items will be negligible. The development will be in keeping with the general appearance of the site and will not have an impact on the context of the site. There remains the low potential for construction vehicles and machinery to cause harm to the buildings.

7.8.3 Mitigation Measures A barrier will be erected around the original pump station and original screen house to prevent construction vehicles harming the buildings.

If any sites or relics of suspected non-indigenous heritage are discovered during construction, work will stop immediately in the vicinity and specialist advice from a suitable qualified heritage consultant will be sought.

7.9 Traffic and Access

7.9.1 Existing Environment Access to the Burwood Beach WWTW is currently via an existing road through the State Conservation Area off Scenic Drive in Merewether Heights. The access road is predominantly used by vehicles accessing the Burwood Beach WWTW, although there is some usage associated with recreation activities, including bicycles and pedestrians.



During normal operating hours, HWC permits the general public to use the existing WWTW access road to enter the Glenrock SCA between the hours of 7:00am and 3:30pm, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays). The grassed area next to the access road on HWC land in front of the WWTW compound is often used as a car parking area for SCA users.

The intersection of the access road and Scenic Drive is steep and not well formed, which poses a possible traffic safety hazard. There are no formal turning bays for trucks or other vehicles entering or exiting the site.

Traffic exiting Burwood Beach WWTW and turning west along Scenic Drive, pass by residences and Merewether Heights Public School, for which there are 40km/hr speed restrictions.

The intersection of Scenic Drive and the road leading to the WWTW is considered to be suitable for heavy vehicle movements as there are heavy vehicles occasionally entering the site at present. There are currently no turning lanes or slip lanes on Scenic Drive to enter into the site. The annual average daily traffic flows on Scenic Drive in 2004 were considered to be approximately 10,477 (Reference RTA website: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/aadt_data_files/aadtnorthern2004_i.pdf)

Vehicles currently using the site include the following:

� Approximately six vehicular movements per day from operators and fitters vehicles entering and leaving the site

� Approximately 60 tankers per month deposit sewage at the gravity main chamber

� HWC staff vehicles that are coming to the site to use the amenities building for meetings

� Screenings removal contractor (one visit per week)

� General maintenance vehicles (cars and trucks) (at least one visit per week)

7.9.2 Impact Assessment During construction of the upgrades, additional truck and vehicle movements will be generated as a result of the need to remove fill and deliver construction material and machinery. The number of workers will also be increased during construction to undertake the work onsite.

This increase in traffic volumes is further outlined in Table 7-11 below. The increase in traffic volumes is restricted to the construction phase of the project and will return to current operational traffic volumes once the upgrade is complete. Using the worst case scenario for traffic movements during the construction period (which is during the excavation period) the increase in overall traffic volumes on Scenic Drive would be approximately 0.8%.




This increase in traffic volumes for the construction period may lead to additional noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor and vehicular emissions in the local area, both of these impacts are discussed in their respective sections.

A summary of vehicle movements can be found in Table 7-11, below.

Table 7-11 Traffic Movements onsite at Burwood Beach

Transport Vehicles Vehicles Remaining On-site

TimeframeCar-

SizedVehicles per day

LoadLoadersand or

sitetrucks

20-TonneTruck per day

Track-Mounted

Excavators on site

Bob-cats/Backhoes

on site

Large MobileCranes

perperiod

SmallYard

Cranesper

period

6m3ConcreteTrucks

perperiod

Current Operations 6-10 4

Site Establishment -

1 month 12- 20

6 for the month

15 per month

Excavation - 3-4 months 16- 26

6 for first week

~13-43 3 4

Construction - 9 months 26-30 ~11 2 2 200

Commissioning - 4-5 months 18-22

15 for commissioning period

Completion of Commissioning

and Commencement

of Normal Operations

6-10 3

All construction traffic will enter the site off Scenic Drive. Due to the limited visibility at the intersection of Scenic Drive there is a safety issue for any vehicles cutting across the traffic turning right into the WWTW access road.

Access for recreational users in the area is unlikely to be affected during construction as work is confined to within the current boundaries of the WWTW. The access road to the WWTW will have an increase in construction traffic that may impact on other local users of the road such as surfers and bike riders.



Public access to the WWTW will be restricted during the construction period. Access to residential and other private property will not be impacted on by this Project. The National Parks and Wildlife Service currently access the Glenrock SCA via the WWTW access road, there will be no impact on this access road.

7.9.3 Mitigation Measures The following traffic mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction period:

� A Traffic Management Plan will be developed for the project

� All heavy vehicles will stay on the main arterial roads where possible

� All heavy vehicles will travel within daylight hours with possible exceptions where this is not feasible

� Vehicle movements will be restricted to the minimum necessary to complete the proposed works

� Mud and other debris will be removed from the wheels and bodies of construction vehicles and equipment that have entered muddy areas prior to leaving the site and before entering public roads or sealed pavements

� Materials will be delivered during standard working hours where possible

� Vehicles will be appropriately maintained to minimise noise

� When onsite, vehicles will park within designated areas and will stay on formed roads

� Vehicle and plant movements will be confined to areas already cleared of vegetation

� A risk assessment will be undertaken and appropriate traffic safety measures implemented around the Scenic Drive entrance

� Heavy vehicles leaving the site will be restricted to a left turn movement only onto Scenic Drive

7.10 Landscape and Visual Considerations

7.10.1 Existing Environment The Burwood Beach WWTW is an existing facility and is located in a valley. The site is visible from several residences located to the northeast of the site at the top of the ridge on Scenic Drive and from a reserve to the east of the site off Hickson Street. The residents look out over the site with the site causing no impact on their ocean views. The site has some large structures and is predominantly low set. The higher structures are not high enough to obstruct any views to nearby residents.

The existing infrastructure onsite includes the following:




� Administration building

� Original pump station and screen house (both disused)

� Primary pump station

� Screenings building

� Grit chambers

� ABF tower

� Two aeration tanks

� Blower building

� Two switchrooms

� Three secondary clarifiers

� Two odour control biofilters

� Secondary Pump station

The current view from Scenic Drive can be seen below in Figure 7-11.

Figure 7-11 Residents view of WWTW from above Scenic Drive (Hunter Water Australia, 2008)

ABF Tower



Figure 7-12 View of the WWTW from Hickson Street reserve (Hunter Water Australia, 2008)

The view of the Burwood Beach WWTW from a reserve used by hang gliders off Hickson Street can be seen in Figure 7-12.

7.10.2 Impact Assessment The upgrade of the WWTW will be most noticeable during the excavation phase of construction. This is when stockpiles may be required onsite. This will be visible to residents on the ridge looking out across the site.

There will be limited vegetation clearance across the site during construction with mainly areas of grass being removed. The visual impact from Scenic Drive and Hickson Street will be minimised due to the existing screening vegetation from Glenrock SCA and the distance of the plant site from nearby houses.

There will be a temporary change to the visual characteristics of the area affected by construction activities. This temporary change will include mobile plant machinery, cranes, trucks and other vehicles being on site, vehicles onsite will have flashing safety lights. Other structures that may create a visual impact on site during construction may include site offices, signs and silt/sediment fences. Temporary dust generation and traffic increases are also likely visual impacts during construction.




The construction period is limited and provided that relevant mitigation measures are implemented on site following completion of the construction (such as rehabilitation) there will be minimal impact to the neighbouring residents of the site.

The nature of the environment within the WWTW site will not change as a result of the Project. The study area is currently a WWTW and with the addition of the Stage 2 Upgrade will still be in keeping with current activities on site. The upgrade includes the following new facilities:

� Third aeration tank

� Second blower building

� Fourth secondary clarifier

� RAS pump station

� Secondary switch room

The addition of the new facilities is not likely to be significantly different to what is seen today. As can be seen in Figure 7-13 the upgraded WWTW is in keeping with what is currently onsite and the additional infrastructure will not be taller than the ABF Tower that is currently located onsite (which is highly visible).

Figure 7-13 Predicted Visual Changes following the Stage 2 Upgrade



7.10.3 Mitigation Measures Efforts will be made throughout the construction phase to seek options that may reduce the visual impact to the residents i.e. minimising removal of vegetation. Stockpiled materials will be removed or reused onsite as soon as practicable.

Revegetation will be undertaken progressively throughout the construction period in order to minimise the amount of bare ground and to reduce amenity, erosion and sedimentation issues.

All new buildings and structures will be of similar colour to those currently on site.

7.11 Waste Minimisation and Management

7.11.1 Existing Environment The site currently has staff waste receptacles within the administration building and there are toilet facilities also within the administration building. These toilet facilities are plumbed to the sewer line that leaves the building and is directed to the head of works.

The WWTW screenings are removed from site by a licensed contractor on a weekly basis.

The domestic waste that is produced onsite is collected weekly by a licensed contractor.

7.11.2 Impact Assessment Waste produced as part of the construction phase of this Project will include the following:

� Earth Material – Spoil will be produced in significant quantities during the excavation works. It is estimated that approximately 30,000 m3 of spoil will need to be excavated in order to build the fourth clarifier, additional aeration tank and other structures. After backfilling it is estimated that approximately 12 500 m3 of spoil will remain onsite.

This spoil may be removed offsite or kept onsite for future works. If this material is exported offsite it will require significant effort to remove including the use of additional trucks. If the spoil is removed it will be taken to a licensed landfill. Impacts from these additional trucks have been considered in the traffic section of this report (Section 7.9).




� ABF Media – The total number of pallets originally installed in the ABF tower was 50,000, with a mass of approximately 400 tonnes. It is not known how much biomass and water has been absorbed by the pallets, however, it is estimated to be between 400 and 600 tonnes, resulting in a total mass of ABF Media to be removed of between 800 and 1,000 tonnes. The ABF Media that will be removed from the ABF tower will be tested to determine its classification in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines (April 2008).

� Topsoil - Any topsoil that is removed during excavation will be retained separately and re-used during landscaping. Where topsoil stockpiles are likely to be left for long periods of time, they will be seeded with a sterile grass seed for soil stabilisation and to minimise weed infestation.

� General Construction Waste - Construction at the site will generate general construction waste such as paper, cardboard, pallets, plastics wraps, general off-cuts and scrap metal. Waste stored onsite will be held in appropriate skips or bunded stockpiles and covered where appropriate. The skips will be emptied regularly and placement of the skips will consider amenity and access requirements

� Vegetation - The main vegetation that will be removed during construction will be grass and weeds. Any trees that are removed will be chipped, this chip will then be re-used in the landscaping of the site. Woody weeds will be separated, where practicable to do so, and disposed of at a licensed landfill site

� Contaminated or chemical waste – This is not anticipated, however, excavation may potentially uncover material that requires appropriate assessment, classification and disposal

� Sewage – Sewage from on-site portable toilets that may be used during construction will be removed by a licensed contractor.

During detail design, full consideration will be given to avoiding activities that generate unnecessary quantities of waste, minimising areas where waste generation will occur, reusing existing plant assets wherever possible, and recycling those materials that cannot be feasibly reused.

During construction there is not expected to be any onsite maintenance of construction equipment.

The POEO Act makes it an offence to 'without lawful authority, wilfully or negligently dispose of waste in a manner which harms or is likely to harm the environment'. Accordingly, the requirements of the POEO Act will be met during the construction works. The impacts of waste generation from the Project are unlikely to have a significant impact on the environment.

During operation waste levels will not be significantly increased and current waste management practices will continue, that is, a weekly waste contractor will remove



domestic waste from the administration building and screenings will also continue to be removed on a weekly basis by a licensed contractor.

7.11.3 Mitigation Measures Construction impacts of the proposed activity will be mitigated as follows:

� Wherever possible, excess soil will be reused onsite

� All waste generated as a result of the Project will be managed in accordance with DECC Waste Classification Guidelines (April 2008)

� The contractor will be required to follow the Waste Resource Management Hierarchy principles of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001

� Where possible, resource use will be avoided through the ordering of materials in sufficient but not excessive quantities and retaining potential waste materials in-situ

� Excess soil material will be stored onsite or available for resale, reuse or will be disposed of at an appropriate licensed landfill facility

� If spoil is to be left onsite it will be rehabilitated with vegetation to minimise any potential visual impacts

� Skip bins or other containers will be used onsite for the collection of general waste. An appropriately licensed waste contractor will collect general waste

� In order to mitigate the potential for offensive odours skips containing putrescibles waste will be emptied regularly and have lids to contain the odour

� Recycling bins will be provided for steel, concrete, cardboard and wood

� In the event of any oil waste occurring onsite, this will be collected and transported to the nearest oil recycling facility

� Transport of materials from site for re-use or disposal will be carried out using covered trucks where appropriate

� All woody weed vegetation will be separated, where practicable, and sent to an appropriate landfill for disposal.

7.12 Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions An assessment of the current and expected future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Stage 2 Upgrade was undertaken for this Project. The assessment included the identification of greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. This report can be seen in Appendix I and has been summarised in the following section.




7.12.1 Existing Environment Existing sources of greenhouse gas in the Burwood Beach WWTW area are from transport related emissions, such as cars and trucks visiting and servicing the site as well as energy use on site.

The sewage treatment process and associated components, such as sewage pumping stations, use energy through electricity consumption. The majority of the energy usage at Burwood WWTW is in pumping and is estimated to be as follows:

� Pumping of raw effluent through the primary treatment process. This is impacted by the magnitude of raw effluent entering the WWTW (including rainfall)

� Pumping through the ABF tower. This load is dependent on the plant capacity and the biological load on the plant

� ABF tower foul air extraction fans. This is a constant load

� Aeration Blowers, this load is dependent on the biological load on the plant and rainfall with the more diluted raw effluent requiring less aeration

� Return Activated Sludge and biological solids disposal pumps. The load is dependent on flows through the secondary treatment process

� Other sources include inlet screen system and associated pumps and conveyors and the clarifier area, amenities, control rooms, lighting and transformer losses (Country Energy, 2007).

A diagram showing the energy use on site can be seen in Figure 7-14.

Estimated Energy Balance Burwood WWTW

Others9%

Inlet Pumps33%

Secondary Pumps21%

ABF4%

Aeration Blowers19%

RAS14%

Figure 7-14 Estimated Energy balance for Burwood Beach WWTW (adopted from Country Energy, 2007)



7.12.2 Impact Assessment During the construction period greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumed on-site will predominantly be accountable to the construction works and not the operation of the WWTW. Construction will be carried out using diesel powered plant and machinery. Trucks entering and leaving the site will also be diesel powered, other vehicles such as construction workers arriving and leaving the site are likely to be driving petrol powered cars. The construction will be undertaken as a phased process, this will limit the number of construction vehicles needed onsite at the one time.

Overall energy consumption during the construction phase is considered minimal and confined to a limited period of time.

During operation there is expected to be a gradual increase in the emissions from the treatment of wastewater and energy usage onsite due to the increase in population growth in the area which results in increased flows and loads into the works. Fixed electrical demands relate to lighting and climate control in the buildings on site and the operation of the secondary pumping station, which will operate at full capacity from the time of commissioning.

A Level 1 GHG assessment was undertaken for the Stage 2 Upgrade in accordance with the following guidelines:

1. The NSW Department of Planning Draft Guidelines for Energy and Greenhouse in EIA (DoP 2002)

2. The Australian Government Department of Climate Change National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors (DoCC 2008)

3. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development & World Resources Institute The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WBCSD & WRI 2004)

4. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurements) Determination 2008.

The assessment considered Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions associated with the Stage 2 Upgrade and the increase on loading on the plant. The Scopes are defined as follows:

� Scope 1 - Direct GHG emissions -Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the company

� Scope 2 – Indirect Electricity GHG emissions - Scope 2 emissions are a category of indirect emissions that accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company. Purchased electricity is defined as being purchased or otherwise brought into the organisational boundary of the company. Scope 2 emissions physically occur at the facility where the electricity is generated




� Scope 3 – Other Indirect GHG emissions - Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are defined as a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company.

Table 7-12 contains a summary of the emissions associated with construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade and operation of the WWTW.

Table 7-12 Summary of Emissions

Emission Scope Current (tCO2-e)

2010 (tCO2-e) 2030 (tCO2-e)

Scope 1 Emissions (Direct emissions) 3,878p.a. 4,068p.a. 4,686p.a.

Scope 2 Emissions (Indirect emissions from electricity) 4,924 p.a. 5,642 p.a. 5,982 p.a.

Scope 3 Emissions (Indirect emissions from goods/services)

Construction Emissions 5,402

Transport Emissions 33 p.a. 33 p.a. 33 p.a.

Purchased Electricity 940 p.a. 1,076 p.a. 1,142 p.a.

Total GHG Emissions (Construction Excluded)

9,775p.a. 10,819p.a. 11,843p.a.

As can be seen from Table 7-12, the total difference in emissions generated by the operation of the Stage 2 Upgrade (at full capacity) is 2,068 tCO2-e per year. Emissions from the construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade total 5,402 tCO2-e, however, this is a once-off emission and will cease once the works have been constructed.

Figure 7-15 contains a histogram of estimated GHG emissions from Burwood Beach WWTW prior to construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade (2005/06), during construction of the works (2010/11) and post completion of the works when the plant is predicted to be working at design capacity (2030/31).



Histogram of GHG Emissions

406838784686

4924 59824924

11751109973

6342

118439316

15334

9775

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

Year

GH

G E

mis

sion

s (tC

O2-

e)

Scope 1Scope 2Scope 3Total

Figure 7-15 Histogram of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As can be seen Scope 2 emissions, resulting from the increase in load at the plant will contribute most to the increase in GHG emissions from Burwood Beach WWTW constituting an increase of 1,058 tCO2-e per annum or 51% of the total increase per annum.

Construction and operation of the Stage 2 Upgrade will result in an increase in Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions due to the need for HWC to purchase additional electricity to operate the upgraded plant and treat more wastewater coming into the plant. Emissions accountable to purchased electricity will increase as a direct result of the Stage 2 Upgrade and then continue to rise proportionate to the increase in influent to the WWTW.

The increase in influent to the plant will lead to a progressive increase in Scope 1 GHG emissions from the plant to 4,686 tCO2-e per year by 2030/31.

The peak in Scope 3 emissions is associated with construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade. These emissions are once-off emissions that will cease once construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade is complete.

7.12.3 Mitigation Measures DoP 2002 recommends consideration of all feasible opportunities to minimize energy use and GHG emissions. HWC is currently developing a GHG Emissions Abatement Strategy that will look at offset strategies and energy optimization initiatives in order to reduce HWC’s GHG emissions.




In addition to formulation of the GHG Emissions Abatement Strategy a number of mitigation measures will be implemented on-site during construction of the Stage 2 Upgrade to minimise energy used and the number of vehicles required. These mitigation measures will include:

� All trucks leaving the site carrying waste will be filled to the maximum amount allowable, depending on the truck size, making certain that trucks are adequately covered, in order to reduce the number of traffic movements required

� The contractor will limit idling time of plant and equipment whilst on site

� Energy usage within the contractor’s site offices and other facilities will be monitored. Energy efficient equipment or functions will be used where possible

� The contractor will be required to include energy efficiency tips and requirements into the site environmental induction

� The contractor will use appropriate energy efficient office equipment where appropriate

� The contractor will make certain that the only lighting left on overnight around the site office will be security or emergency/access lighting.

A number of mitigation measures discussed in previous sections will have the added benefit of reducing GHG emissions and energy consumption. These measures include:

� Earthmoving equipment and on-site vehicles will be fitted with exhaust controls in accordance with the POEO (Clean Air) Regulation.

� The contractor will be required to check that all equipment is properly maintained so that unacceptable exhaust emissions do not occur in accordance with the POEO (Clean Air) Regulation



8 Cumulative Environmental Effects and ESD

8.1 Cumulative Environmental Effects As outlined in Section 1.6 there are a number of projects that are planned or are currently being undertaken at the Burwood Beach WWTW. These projects are detailed in the following sections.

If construction of any of these projects occurs simultaneously with the Stage 2 Upgrade there is a chance that impacts during construction such as visual, air quality, noise and traffic will be compounded.

If separate contractors are onsite undertaking separate projects at the same time the construction area required and therefore the localised impacts may be increased. HWC will endeavour to limit the number of contractors onsite at the same time and attempt to combine projects in one contract or schedule the projects so that cumulative impacts are less likely to occur.

Due to the location of the Burwood Beach WWTW it is unlikely that any projects that are proposed in the surrounding region will result in negative cumulative impacts. Construction and operation of these projects will lead to a cumulative benefit to Burwood Beach WWTW with improved operating capacity and efficiency. This in turn will lead to social and environmental benefits within the Newcastle region.

8.1.1 Dudley - Charlestown Carrier Duplication The Charlestown Carrier is being duplicated and an additional carrier will be laid into the works, this work is not likely to be run in parallel with the Stage 2 Upgrade. It will take place separately to the Stage 2 Upgrade, therefore, cumulative impacts during construction are not likely to occur.

The duplication works will result in an increase in wet weather flows to the WWTW. A separate EIA has been prepared for these works which addresses this and other potential impacts (Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd, 2005).

8.1.2 Wet Weather System Upgrade The Newcastle wastewater transportation system is being upgraded to improve its performance in wet weather. Upgrades are planned to be undertaken in two stages over a timeframe of approximately ten years. Stage 1 will focus on upgrading the backbone of the wastewater transportation system to Burwood Beach WWTW in order to provide more capacity when the catchment experiences higher flows in heavy rainfall.

Stage 2 will focus on specific improvements in the upstream catchments where customers and the environment are most affected.

A separate REF has been prepared for these works (CH2M HILL, 2001).




The timing of these works has not been confirmed, however the upgrade may coincide with the Stage 2 Upgrade works. If Stage 1 works at the WWTW coincide with the Stage 2 Upgrade localised noise, dust and traffic impacts may increase.

A positive cumulative impact associated with operation of the wet weather system upgrade and the Stage 2 Upgrade will be a net benefit to the marine environment and to customers and the environment in upstream areas of the catchment.

8.1.3 Odour Control Upgrade The construction involved in the odour control upgrade will involve the installation of a new biofilter on the site.

These works are likely to be nearing completion at the commencement of the Stage 2 Upgrade, however, due to the indefinite timeframes of both of the upgrades, the cumulative impacts of biofilter construction will be considered with those of this upgrade.

The construction of a biofilter is likely to impact upon traffic movements to and from the site and air quality in terms of dust and vehicle emissions. Noise impacts are also likely as a result of the excavation and additional traffic movements.

The construction period is programmed to commence in the January 2009, with construction and commissioning expected to last for approximately 26 weeks. The REF for this project does not quantify the additional truck movements that are expected from this project, it states that ‘the associated traffic increases will be for short/infrequent durations’ (Hunter Water Australia, 2008). These ‘short/infrequent’ traffic impacts in addition to the traffic counts outlined in Section 7.9 will not lead to significantly more vehicles on the road or in the area.

The construction hours for the odour control upgrade have been identified as 7am-6pm Monday to Friday and 8am-1pm Saturday. The REF states that it is not expected that the background noise level at the nearest sensitive residential receiver will be exceeded. As these hours are similar to those proposed for the Stage 2 Upgrade noise is unlikely to be an issue with neighbouring property owners.

A positive cumulative impact associated with the operation of the odour control upgrade and the Stage 2 Upgrade will be a net improvement on odour emissions from the Burwood Beach WWTW.

8.2 Ecologically Sustainable Development The most common and broadest definition of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) is “development that improves the quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends” (National Strategy for ESD, 1992).



The Stage 2 Upgrade must be considered having regard to the four principles of ESD as outlined in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (as amended by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000).

These principles are:

� The precautionary principle – minimise the potential risk for serious environmental problems even if we are uncertain they will occur

� Intergenerational equity – that present generations do not reduce the value of the environment to future generations

� Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity – these are fundamental to the sustainability of development

� Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms – that users pay for their products or services, including their full life-cycle impacts, and cost-effective market mechanisms to attribute externalities will be implemented.

The following is a discussion of these principles and their implications for the Project.

8.2.1 Precautionary Principle The Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 define the precautionary principle as “if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty will not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

This REF has been prepared to provide a careful evaluation of the Project in order to identify and quantify any likely, or potential, serious or irreversible damage to the environment as a result of the Stage 2 Upgrade and to confirm appropriate controls and management strategies to negate or minimise such damage.

The construction of the Burwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 Upgrade will not result in serious or irreversible environmental damage. All works will be undertaken within the current site boundary of the WWTW and a number of mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction phase to minimise impacts upon the community and the environment (See Section 9.1).

The operation of the Burwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 Upgrade will not result in serious or irreversible environmental damage to the receiving waters (CEE, 2007). The environmental monitoring program established for the outfall and auditing will be continued to assess any potential future impacts of the outfall (See Section 9.2).




8.2.2 Intergenerational and Intra-generational Equity Intergenerational and intra-generational equity requires that the “present generation will ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of present and future generations” (as specified in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 & EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Regulation 2000).

A community consultation strategy was implemented to identify community concerns and values relating to the Project (See Section 3) and an assessment of the potential social impacts of the Project was undertaken (See Section 7).

The Burwood Beach WWTW Stage 2 Upgrade is compatible with all viable future liquid and biological solids upgrade strategy options and does not restrict or bias other viable options for providing utility services for future generations in the area. Specifically, the Stage 2 Upgrade does not restrict future options to either improve effluent quality or provide alternate biological solids management strategies at the site. The Stage 2 Upgrade will result in no adverse effects for future generations as the resources required to complete the Project are readily available and not limited.

The outcome of the Project is that the Burwood Beach WWTW will have the capacity to reliably treat wastewater from the catchment to protect local water quality.

8.2.3 Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity This principle requires the diversity of genes, species, populations and their communities, as well as the ecosystems and habitats they belong to be maintained or improved to ensure their survival.

Potential impacts on flora and fauna identified in this REF will be managed during the construction phase through the implementation of the various mitigation measures detailed in this REF (See Section 6.7). The Stage 2 Upgrade will not have a significant impact on terrestrial or marine ecology.

8.2.4 Improved Valuation and Pricing of Environmental Resources Resources extracted from the environment are generally perceived as ‘free’, with the true cost to the environment not factored into the cost of production or use of that resource. This principle involves placing a monetary or social value on the environment that ultimately increases its value so as to decrease future exploitation. Pollution and/or future exploitation can be controlled under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, whereby polluters or those who degrade the natural environment are responsible and accountable for restoring it to its previous natural condition. This principle is legislated in NSW by the POEO Act which licences scheduled facilities.

Once the Stage 2 Upgrade has been constructed Burwood Beach WWTW will have sufficient capacity to operate within the concentration and load limits stipulated in the plant’s EPL. Additionally, the proposed reuse of water (see Section 5.3.11) on site



to replace potable water is reflective of HWCs appreciation of the value of potable water resources and maximizing the value of all water resources.

8.2.5 Application of ESD to the Project The principles of ESD have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Upgrade from the inception of the proposed works through to its operation.

The precautionary principle has been applied in the preparation of this REF and the project design. Numerous studies have been undertaken as part of this REF to clarify areas of uncertainty regarding potential environmental and social harm and appropriate mitigation measures identified to minimise the harm and conserve biological diversity and ecological integrity. The Stage 2 Upgrade will also help to conserve biological diversity and ecological integrity as the works will improve effluent and biological solids quality and on-site stormwater management, whereby minimising potential future harm to the environment.

The existence of scientific uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of the ocean discharge has resulted in the need to undertake further investigations prior to a decision being made on the preferred long term effluent and biological solids management strategy for Burwood Beach WWTW. The resultant strategy (the Stage 3 Upgrade) will be the subject of a separate environmental impact assessment.

The Stage 2 Upgrade will also meet the principle of inter and intra generational equity as the Project will provide utility services to the present generation and will not restrict alternative options to provide utility services to future generations.

Incorporation of a recycled water scheme on-site is evidence of HWC’s appreciation of the value of water and of the principle of improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources.






9 Implementation Stage

9.1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures This section summarises the environmental management and mitigative measures proposed in Section 6 and 7 of this REF for each environmental impact.

Table 9-1 Consolidated Mitigation Measures during Detailed Design Phase

Environmental Factors Mitigation Measures Topography, Drainage & Flooding � Design a sheet pile wall or other means of containing creek

flow and protect the creek

Geology and Soils � Undertake an intrusive investigation across the excavation area to determine the existence of screenings disposal trenches. During this investigation personal protective equipment is to be used and all disturbed screenings are to be contained immediately and removed from site

� Gain MSB approval

� Develop a Soil and Water Management Plan

� Include the following details in the plan:

o Diversion of clean water around the site to avoid areas disturbed by construction works

o Establishment of one stabilised entry and exit point to the construction site

o Adequate site management including but not limited to the installation of sediment fences on the lower side of the construction site and jute matting where required to prevent sediment escaping into local waterways

o Placement of suitable erosion and sediment controls on the downslope side of all stockpiles

o Regular inspection and maintenance of sediment controls and appropriate disposal of sediment that is trapped within these control systems

o Inspection of all erosion and sediment controls following a significant rainfall event (20mm or more)

o Visual inspection and monitoring of stockpiles to reduce the risk of sedimentation and dust generation

o Stripping and stockpiling of the topsoil to be used in future rehabilitation works

o Progressive rehabilitation of the site during construction to limit the amount of exposed soil at any one time

o Construction of a temporary bunded area for a




vehicle wash down facility. All runoff from the wash down site to be adequately contained to allow absorption into the soil

o Testing and classification of any soil that is to be removed from the site prior to removal to allow appropriate classification and disposal to occur

o Inspections of trucks and machinery for leaks

o Spill kits around site

o Undertaking refuelling activities offsite where practicable

o Storage of all chemicals and fuels in suitably bunded areas away from drainage lines. The capacity of the bunded area is to be at least 120% of the largest chemical container stored within the bunded area

Groundwater � The sheet pile is to be designed to withstand hydrostatic pressure

� The soil and water management plan to outline measures to be implemented to mitigate impacts of dewatering

Land Use � Nearby residents to be notified about the works and to be kept informed throughout the planning phase

Traffic and Access � Develop a Traffic Management Plan

Noise � Develop a Noise Management Plan which includes an outline of the resident notification procedures

Waste � Consideration to be given to avoiding activities that generate unnecessary quantities of waste, minimising areas where waste generation will occur, reusing existing plant assets wherever possible, and recycling those materials that cannot be feasibly reused

Table 9-2 Consolidated Mitigation Measures during Construction Phase

Environmental Factors Mitigation Measures Topography, Drainage & Flooding � Install sheet-pile wall or other means of containing creek flow

and protect the creek inline with the current fenceline

� All installation work is to be undertaken from the WWTW side of the fence and machinery is to avoid the area between the creek and the fence line as far as practicable

� Water entering the excavation directly is the responsibility of the excavation contractor

Stormwater � Exposed areas are to be rehabilitated as soon as practicable



Geology & Soils � Soil and water management plan is to be implemented

Groundwater � Groundwater encountered to be tested prior to disposal

o If contaminated, water to be pumped to head of works

o If uncontaminated, water to be infiltrated into a vegetated area on the site

Terrestrial Ecology � The area of vegetation to be cleared for the proposed works, within the WWTW fenceline is to be kept to a minimum

� Any landscaping and/or erosion control works are to utilise native species as far as practicable

� Weed management and the utilisation of local topsoil are to be implemented to control the spreading of exotic species

� Exotic vegetation is to be removed prior to construction and disposed of at an appropriately licensed landfill facility

� All weed parts to be kept away from drainage lines to prevent weed infestation in unaffected areas

� Prior to removal of vegetation tree hollows are to be inspected for fauna, any fauna is to be relocated by a suitably trainer person to an appropriate habitat

� Any injured wildlife found onsite to be captured and taken to the local veterinarian or WIRES

� Site inductions to include information on threatened species that may occur within the vicinity of the WWTW

� If any threatened species are discovered prior to or during construction, works are to stop immediately

� The construction footprint is to be clearly defined and all construction staff instructed that no work or plant is to be located outside the designated footprint

� All staff are to be instructed to avoid contact, as far as practicable with the surrounding creeks or their banks during construction

� All native tress that are removed are to be chipped onsite, this wood chip is to be reused in the landscaping works where possible

� All tree stumps that are removed are to be chipped where possible, or ground out in situ, to minimise safety hazards

� Any non-hollow-bearing trees around those with tree hollows to be felled are to be removed first. At least one day to be left




between clearing of the non-hollow-bearing trees and the hollow-bearing trees to allow fauna time to vacate the trees

� Prior to felling of the identified and marked hollow-bearing trees, the trees are to be shaken or nudged by tree-felling equipment to encourage any fauna to vacate the trees

� If no animals emerge from the hollows after shaking or nudging, then the tree is to be felled and lowered to the ground if possible

Land Use � Nearby residents are to be informed when works taking place may impact upon the social environment

Air Quality � All vehicle exhaust systems are to be maintained to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Regulations under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997

� Emissions from equipment and plant are to be regularly checked

� The contractor is to remove any vehicle or item of mobile equipment from on-site activities which is observed not to comply with NSW DECC guidelines

� Maintenance and servicing of plant and equipment is to be undertaken offsite as required by manufacturer’s specifications

� Vehicles are not to be left idling when not required

� Exposed surfaces or any potentially dust-generating areas to be watered down, for example unsealed access roads and soil stockpiles

� Stockpiles are to be covered with plastic sheeting if deemed necessary during high winds

� Vegetation clearing to occur only when no alternative can be sought

� Stabilisation of exposed areas with grass species as soon as practicable after exposure

� Covers to be placed on all trucks transporting construction material when entering and leaving the construction site

� Access roads to be sealed where possible and speed limits to be established to minimise dust production

� Controlled access to the construction sites with vehicles and machinery keeping to the demarcated areas

� The Contractor is to implement standard health and safety procedures for construction employees, including requirements for appropriate personal protective equipment where generation of dust, odour or emissions is unavoidable



The following measures are relevant to the ABF Tower media replacement works:

� Local residents to be notified of the commencement of ABF tower works

� Odour management plan is to be implemented.

� The plan is to include deactivation of the media involving replacement of the influent feed with potable water or secondary effluent for at least 3 weeks to significantly reduce the active biomass population followed by at least 3 weeks for the timber media to dry out.

� Review effectiveness of the plan prior to removing the cover

� Installation of a temporary cover during times when no work is being undertaken but the ABF tower still contains old media if deemed necessary

Noise � Construction hours are from Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm, and 8am to 1pm Saturday.

� Construction work to only be undertaken on-site on Sundays and at night when necessary, all residents are to be notified by HWC of any audible works to be undertaken during the night or on Sundays

� Night time construction work to be minimised in consultation with HWC

� If during normal construction hours exceedances of the construction noise criteria are expected for example during pile driving or large concrete pours, the community is to be given prior notice of the activity, expected duration and approximate noise level

� A pile driver is expected to be required on an intermittent basis during construction. It is recommended that vibrating drivers are used on this site although it is acknowledged that impact drivers may be required

� The construction noise objective for the project is to manage noise from construction activities (as measured by a LA10 (15 minute) descriptor) so as to not exceed the background LA90 noise level by more than 5 dB(A) at any sensitive receiver

� Noise emissions from the plant and equipment operated onsite during the Project to be minimised by installing and maintaining, wherever practicable, efficient silencers, low-noise mufflers, and replacement of reversing alarms on vehicles with alternative silent measures, such as flashing lights

� Existing blowers to be placed into an acoustically enclosed unit inside the existing building

� New blowers to be enclosed in an acoustically enclosed unit




in a new building

Hazards and Risks � All relevant approvals required to work with hazardous materials are to be obtained by Contractors

� All requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 are to be fulfilled during the construction works

� Personal protective equipment is to be used at all times by all staff onsite

� Public access to the site is prohibited

� Combustible materials are to be removed from the construction site as soon as possible to minimise any risk of starting or fuelling bushfire

� Access to be granted when necessary for the purpose of fire fighting

� Staff are to be adequately trained in using fire fighting equipment, equipment is to be readily available on site

� ‘Hot works’ are not to be carried out on days of total fire ban warnings

� During the declared bushfire season, the following are to be implemented onsite when undertaking hot works within or outside the boundary of the treatment plant:

o A check of fire warnings and total fire ban status preceding any hot works

o The use of grinding, welding, spark or heat producing equipment is to be undertaken within an area clear of flammable materials (including grasses or vegetation) or, where this is not practicable, in accordance with the total fire ban operating conditions identified below

o Any such equipment to be placed, after use, in an area that is non-flammable (i.e. not directly upon grasses) and does not have flammable materials within it until such plant or equipment has cooled down

o A fire check to be undertaken on completion of the hot works

� During declared total fire ban days the following additional measures are to be observed:

o Seek approval of the NSW Fire Brigade before undertaking hot works

o A water cart or similar fire response mechanisms is to be in the immediate vicinity of the works performed within the boundary of the treatment



plant

o A nominated fire-spotter is to be assigned to observe any hot works and have immediate access to a water cart (or equivalent) to enable immediate response to any combustion resulting from the works

o A fire check is to be performed over a period of 30 minutes from cessation of use of the equipment

� Any chemicals that are required onsite during the upgrade that are considered to be potentially hazardous are to be assessed to determine the offsite risks to people, property and the environment

� Any chemicals that are required onsite during the upgrade that are considered to be potentially hazardous are to be handled, stored and used as per manufacturers specifications and Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2000

� MSDS sheets for all chemicals are to be stored onsite and kept within close proximity to the storage area. Copies are to be available at defined reference locations including the contractor’s compound, first aid station and main site building

� The original pump station and screenings house are to be partitioned off by the use of barriers

� An emergency response plan is to be developed, detailing rescue techniques for construction workers caught in flooded excavations

� All workers onsite are to receive a site safety induction

Indigenous Heritage � Staff working onsite are to be instructed to stop work immediately on identification of any Aboriginal artefact

o DECC and Awabakal Local Aboriginal Land Council are to be notified and works are not to re-commence until advise from these groups has been obtained

� All personnel working on the site are to receive induction training regarding their responsibilities under the NPW Act

� Section 90 (1) of the Act states that it is an offence to knowingly destroy, deface or damage, or cause or permit the destruction or defacement of or damage to, an object or Aboriginal place without first obtaining the consent of the NPWS

Non-Indigenous Heritage � Barriers are to be erected around the original pump station and original screen house to prevent construction vehicles harming the buildings

� If sites or relics of suspected non-indigenous heritage are discovered during construction, work is to stop immediately




and specialist advice from a suitable qualified heritage consultant is to be sought

Traffic and Access � Heavy vehicles are to stay on the main arterial roads where possible

� Heavy vehicles are to travel within daylight hours with possible exceptions where this is not feasible

� Vehicle movements are to be restricted to the minimum necessary to complete the proposed works

� Mud and other debris is to be removed from the wheels and bodies of construction vehicles and equipment prior to leaving the site and before entering public roads or sealed pavements

� Materials are to be delivered during standard working hours where possible

� When onsite, vehicles are to park within designated areas and to stay on formed roads

� Vehicle and plant movements are to be confined to areas already cleared of vegetation

� Undertake a risk assessment and implement appropriate traffic safety measures around the Scenic Drive entrance

� Heavy vehicles leaving the site are to be restricted to a left turn movement only onto Scenic Drive

Landscape and Visual Considerations � Efforts are to be made throughout the construction phase to seek options to reduce the visual impact on residents i.e. minimising removal of vegetation, removal of stockpiled materials as soon as practicable, etc.

� Progressive revegetation is to occur throughout the construction period

� All new buildings and structures are to be of similar colour to those currently on site

Waste Minimisation and Management � Excess soil is to be reused onsite, where possible

� Excess soil is to be used onsite during re-vegetation, wherever possible

� Waste generated as a result of the Project is to be managed in accordance with Waste Classification Guidelines (April 2008)

� The contractor is required to follow the Waste Resource Management Hierarchy principles of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001



� Resource use is to be avoided through the ordering of materials in sufficient but not excessive quantities and retaining potential waste materials in-situ

� Excess soil material is to be stored onsite or available for resale, reuse or is to be disposed of at an appropriate licensed landfill facility

� If spoil is to be left onsite it is to be rehabilitated with vegetation to minimise any potential visual impacts

� Skip bins or other containers to be used onsite for the collection of general waste. An appropriately licensed waste contractor is to collect general waste

� In order to mitigate the potential for offensive odours skips containing putrescibles waste are to be emptied regularly and have lids to contain odours

� Recycling bins are to be provided for steel, concrete, cardboard and wood

� In the event of any oil waste occurring onsite, it is to be collected and transported to the nearest oil recycling facility

� Transport of materials from site for re-use or disposal is to be carried out using covered trucks where appropriate

� All woody weed vegetation is to be separated, where practicable, and sent to an appropriate landfill for disposal

Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions � Trucks leaving the site carrying waste are to be filled to the maximum amount allowable, depending on the truck size, making certain that trucks are adequately covered

� Energy usage within the contractor’s site offices and other facilities is to be monitored. Energy efficient equipment or functions are be used where possible

� The contractor is required to include energy efficiency tips and requirements into the site environmental induction

� The contractor is to use appropriate energy efficient office equipment, where appropriate

� The contractor is to make certain that only lighting left on overnight is for security purposes only




Table 9-3 Consolidated Proposed Mitigation Measures during Operational Phase

Environmental Factors Mitigation Measures Marine Sediments � Hunter water to continually implement robust trade waste

management practices across the catchment

� Continued monitoring of sediment quality is to occur every 5 years

Geology and Soils � All chemicals to be used during operation on the WWTW site to be handled and stored appropriately on suitable bunding.

Surface Water Quality � Continuation of monitoring programs to assess the outfall and bioassays

Marine Ecology � Continued monitoring of the marine environment around the outfall and at local beaches including:

o Beach monitoring as per NSW Beachwatch protocols

o Macrobenthos surveys every two years

o Toxicity bioassays every two years

o Biological solids discharge quality for metals and organics weekly/ monthly

o Sediment contamination studies every five years

o Bioaccumulation studies every five years

Land Use � Notify nearby residents of any future works occurring at the Burwood Beach WWTW

Human Health � Continue to monitor the effluent and biological solids discharge

� Continue beach monitoring (as per NSW Beachwatch protocols)

Hazards & Risks � Access to the site to be granted when necessary for the purpose of fire fighting

� Staff to be adequately trained in using fire fighting equipment

� Fire fighting equipment to be made readily available on site



9.2 Implementation Process

9.2.1 Construction Environmental Management Specific plans to manage the environmental impacts of construction activities will be prepared for the construction phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade. The following plans will be prepared:

� Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including sub-plans outlined in the tables above

� Safety Management Plan (SMP)

� Incident Management Plan.

This REF has recommended that certain mitigative measures be implemented during the construction phase of the Project. These mitigative measures are listed in Section 9.1 and will be included in the above mentioned plans.

9.2.2 Operational Environmental Management The Burwood Beach WWTW operating procedures will be reviewed and updated to accommodate the Stage 2 Upgrade works. Any additions due to approvals will also be incorporated into these procedures.

9.2.3 Environmental Monitoring, Auditing and Reporting EPL No. 1683 includes a monitoring and reporting regime for the WWTW. The monitoring regime details sampling requirements to ascertain effluent volume and quality, sludge volume and quality and the quality of the waters within close proximity to the ocean outfall and at the surrounding beaches. An annual report of these monitoring results is required to be supplied to the EPA. This report is also required to document any non-compliance with licence conditions that occurred within the previous 12 months, including overflow incidents and environmental harm as a result of operations.

Further to these licence requirements HWC performs sampling at local beaches as part of the Beachwatch program.

HWC also regularly monitors marine flora and fauna within close proximity of the ocean outfall. Various monitoring programmes undertaken at Burwood Beach include:

� Abundance and diversity of benthic communities (every two years)

� Toxicity bioassays (chronic and acute) (every two years)

� Oceanography Modelling

� Sediment contamination studies

� Bioaccumulation studies.




These monitoring programmes will continue.

Other monitoring that is regularly undertaken onsite includes the following:

� General workplace safety inspection – this includes specific environmental monitoring

� General daily and weekly inspections of the site tasks undertaken by the plant operators.



10 Conclusion

10.1 Summary of Key Issues Having considered all the relevant factors documented in this REF (Sections 6 and 7) and the fact that all construction work will be undertaken within the current WWTW site fence boundary, it is concluded that the Stage 2 Upgrade will not have a significant impact on the environment. A summary of the key issues associated with the Project is provided below.

10.2 Summary of Potential Impacts

10.2.1 Summary of Adverse Effects The upgrade of the Burwood Beach WWTW does present some minor impacts, however, these are predominantly in the short-term construction phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade.

Construction will likely present some short-term minor impacts these include the following:

� The changing of ABF tower media may present some odour issues to nearby residents but this is expected to be minimal as mitigation measures will be implemented

� Excavation teamed with the additional traffic movements may increase the level of noise onsite. Noise levels will generally comply with noise guidelines.

� Construction is also likely to increase the volume of traffic in the area. This impact will be limited to short periods during the construction phase of the Stage 2 Upgrade.

These impacts are expected to be minimal with the implementation of the detailed mitigation measures (outlined in Section 9.1).

10.2.2 Summary of Beneficial Effects The upgrade of the Burwood Beach WWTW will have a major beneficial impact on the performance and reliability of the overall treatment plant. The Stage 2 Upgrade will result in a minor improvement in the long term average quality of effluent produced by the plant, will ensure reliable operation in compliance with the conditions of the plant’s EPL, and will result in a minor reduction in the volume of untreated wastewater to bypass the secondary treatment process.

The upgrade will also result in improvements to the site stormwater management system. The system will entrap and treat potentially polluted stormwater onsite. This will prevent potentially polluted water entering the neighbouring watercourses.






11 References

Ajani, P. (1995), Hunter Environmental Monitoring Program 1992-1994. NSW Environment Protection Agency.

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (ANZECC), (2000), Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine waters. October 2000.

AWT (2000), Benthos Survey at Boulder Bay and Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works Ocean Outfalls.

AWT (2003), Benthos Survey at Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works Ocean Outfall – 2003/03.

AWT Ensight (1996), Toxicity Tests for Burwood Beach WWTW, 29 April – 2 May, 1996.

AWT Ensight. (1998), Bioassay testing of Burwood Beach WWTW Biosolids Effluent.

Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2008), Accessed at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_061055.shtm. Date accessed 22 April 2008.

Bio-Analysis (2006), Patterns in Assemblages of Macrobenthos Associated with the Ocean Outfalls at Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach – Ocean Outfall Benthos Study. Editors: Roberts, D.E. & Murray S.R. Bioanalysis Pty Ltd Report, August, 2006.

Bridges, M. (2008), Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works Stage 2 Upgrade – Noise Impact Statement. Bridges Acoustics

CH2M HILL (2001) Upgrade Management Plan for the Wastewater Systems of the Newcastle (Burwood Beach) Catchment, Volume 4 – Review of Environmental Factors CH2M HILL (2005), Burwood Beach WWTW Capacity Review, Optimisation and Upgrade Strategy. “Part A – Flow and Load Assessment Report.”

CH2M HILL (2006), Burwood Beach WWTW Capacity Review, Optimisation and Upgrade Strategy. “Part B – Capacity and Process Performance Review - Final.”

CH2M HILL (2007), Burwood Beach WWTW Capacity Review, Optimisation and Upgrade Strategy. “Part C – Options Assessment and Upgrade Strategy.”

Connell Wagner (2006), Hunter Water Corporation Proposed Horizontal Directional Drilling Merewether Golf Course to Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works – Supplementary Review of Environmental Factors. 17 May 2006 Revision 1.3.




Consulting Environmental Engineers (CEE) (2007), Review of Environmental Monitoring for Burwood Beach Sludge Outfall.

Country Energy (2007), Energy Audit for Hunter Water. Draft Report July 2007.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2007), Beachwatch and Harbourwatch State of the Beaches 2006-2007.

Department of Planning (2006), Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. NSW Government 2006-13.

Douglas Partners (2008), Report on Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Upgrade Burwood Beach WWTW Off Scenic Drive Merewether. Prepared for CH2M HILL , on behalf of Hunter Water Corporation. Project 39861. July 2008.

Ecotox Services Australasia (ESA) (2001), Ecotoxicity of Burwood Beach Biosolids Effluent.

Ecotox Services Australasia (ESA) (2005), Ecotoxicity of Burwood Beach Biosolids Effluent.

EPA (1993), Environmental Guidelines for Discharge of Wastes to Ocean Waters, (EG-1).

EPA (1194), NSW Environment Protection Authority Contaminants in Fish and Oysters from Newcastle Waters. Technical Report 94167.

Griffin, NRM (2003), Glenrock Lagoon Cultural Landscape: Conservation Management and Cultural Tourism Plan, Report to NPWS.

Hunter Water Corporation (2007), Environmental Monitoring and Performance Review of Burwood Beach WWTW Biosolids to Ocean Discharge. Hunter Water Corporation Update Report, July 2007.

Hunter Water Australia (2008), Review of Environmental Factors – Burwood Beach WWTP Screenings Handling and Odour Control Upgrade. Report prepared for Hunter Water Corporation March 2008.

Matthei, L.E. (1995), Soil Landscapes of the Newcastle, 1:100,000 Sheet, 1995.

Murphy, C. (1995), Newcastle 1:25,000 Acids Sulphate Soil Risk Map, Soil Conservation Service NSW, 1995.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (1997), National Water Quality Management Strategy. Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Effluent Management.

Nexus Archaeology and Heritage. (2005), Assessment of Historical Archaeology: Precinct of James Mitchell’s former Copper Smelter, Burwood Beach near Newcastle, Draft Report for Connell Wagner, May 2005.



NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2007), Glenrock State Conservation Area. Accessed at: http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/parks.nsf/parkContent/N0616?OpenDocument&ParkKey=N0616&Type=xo Date Accessed: 25 February 2008.

NSW Environment Protection Agency (EPA) (1996), Hunter Environmental Monitoring Program 1992-1996 ISBN 0 7310 3808 8, EPA 96/78.

Roberts, D.E., Cummins, S. P. & Murray, S. R. (2007), Contaminants in Sediments associated with the Ocean Outfalls at Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach – Ocean Outfall Contaminant Study. BioAnalysis Pty Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) (1997), Review of Environmental Performance of Burwood Beach WWTW Biosolids to Ocean Discharge. January 1997.

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) (1999), Toxicity Testing of Burwood Beach WWTW Biosolids.

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) (2000), Toxicity Testing of Burwood Beach WWTW Biosolids.

Sydney Water Corporation (1996) Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Sewage Discharges to Ocean Waters, ISBN 0 7310 71948, January 1996

Winning, G. (2007), Burwood Beach WWTW Upgrade – Preliminary Ecological Assessment. Hunter Wetlands Research Pty Ltd.

Water Research Laboratory. (2008) Burwood Beach Ocean Outfall Monitoring and Modelling.

Documents

6 Impact Assessment – Physical Environment...6 Impact Assessment – Physical Environment 6.1 Topography, Drainage and Flooding 6.1.1 Existing Environment There are two creeks that