APPENDIX D – AQUENAL MARINE SURVEY · 4 EXISTING MARINE ENVIROMENT Aquenal conducted a baseline study of the marine environment in the vicinity of the proposed pumping facility

Naracoopa Mineral Sand Pumping Operation – Supplementary Information

2290.002 Revision 0 Appendix D

APPENDIX D – AQUENAL MARINE SURVEY

A Q U E N A L PTY LTD

NARACOOPA MINERAL SAND PUMPING OPERATION MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL

Prepared by

AQUENAL PTY LTD

for

SEMF Pty Ltd

16 September 2010

Naracoopa Mineral Sands Pumping Operation Marine Environmental Impact Appraisal

Aquenal Pty Ltd 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Project description ................................................................................................................ 2

2 Brief........................................................................................................................................ 2

3 overview of sand pumping operation .................................................................................. 2

4 Existing Marine Enviroment ............................................................................................... 2

5 Potential Impacts of the Sand Pumping Operation on the Marine Enviroment ............ 3

5.1 Construction Phase ...................................................................................................... 3

5.2 Operational Phase........................................................................................................ 3

6 Mitigation of Impact ............................................................................................................. 3

6.1 Construction Phase ...................................................................................................... 3

6.2 Operational Phase........................................................................................................ 3

7 Monitoring of Impact ........................................................................................................... 4


Aquenal Pty Ltd 2

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAJB proposes to transport sand from an existing ilmenite sand stockpile to an offshore barge moored at Fraser Beach by means of a temporary heavy mineral sands pumping operation. The heavy mineral sands (HMS) contained in the stockpile is a naturally occurring material found both on land and in the marine environment. This operation is described in the SEMF report Temporary Mineral Sands Pumping Operation – Statement of Environmental Effects. (SEMF 2010) 2 BRIEF Aquenal Pty Ltd has been commissioned to review the proposed temporary pumping operation in terms of the potential impacts on the marine environment. 3 OVERVIEW OF SAND PUMPING OPERATION A pump system will draw seawater into a 30 cm diameter HDPE pipe through an inlet situated 150 m out to sea and 1 m above the seabed. This seawater will be mixed with the HSM in a slurry pit onshore and pumped via a flexible pipe into a hopper on a barge moored 170 m out to sea. In the hopper the sand will settle out and seawater from the slurry will drain into the sea via large pipes covered in fine steel mesh and a fine shade cloth. The piping and mooring structure will consist of HDPE pipes held in place on the seabed by concrete weights and a mooring system comprised of six steel pipes driven 5 m into the seabed using a vibrator. For a full description of the operation and its infrastructure refer to the Environmental Effects Report prepared by SEMF (SEMF 2010). The proposed sand pumping operation will enable HMS to be pumped at a rate of about 500 tonnes of sand per hour (or 1500 tonnes of slurry per hour). Therefore approximately 1000 tonnes (or 1000 m3) of slurry water will be discharged into the marine environment each hour. This operation will continue 24 hours per day, 7 days a week when a barge is moored for loading and will fill one of two barges approximately each 2 hours. 4 EXISTING MARINE ENVIROMENT Aquenal conducted a baseline study of the marine environment in the vicinity of the proposed pumping facility in 2005 - Marine Ecological Baseline Survey – Tasmanian Titanium Sand Mining Site King Island (Aquenal 2005). The subtidal environment immediately adjacent to the sandy shore at the mining site was found to consist of bare mobile sand that extended to approximately 500 m offshore. Further offshore, the seabed consisted of rippled sand with widely spaced sparse seagrass patches. The composition of benthic infauna communities was typical of shallow coastal habitats in Tasmania, consisting primarily of crustaceans, molluscs and polychaetes. No individuals of Gazameda gunnii, a mollusc species listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were recorded during the survey.


Aquenal Pty Ltd 3

The shallow, less complex reefs in the vicinity of Naracoopa support reduced marine biological abundance and diversity compared with deeper, more complex reefs along other sections of the King Island east coast. The 2005 survey did not assess mammals, birds or other macrofauna. 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE SAND PUMPING OPERATION ON THE

MARINE ENVIROMENT 5.1 Construction Phase The main source of impact during the construction phase is expected to be noise generated by pile driving operations. This may to impact on cetaceans in the vicinity. However, as this phase is expected to be very brief the impact is unlikely to be significant. Other sources of impact will be vessel movement and disturbance of the seabed. Again, neither of these is expected to cause significant impact. 5.2 Operational Phase The main source of potential impact from the operational phase is the quality of the slurry water that will be discharged into the sea from the barges. This water will have been mixed thoroughly with the HMS and any interstitial water they contain. There is a possibility that it will therefore contain elevated levels of contaminants such as heavy metals and suspended particulate matter. There is potential for these contaminants to cause localised impact by either toxic effects of the heavy metals in elevated concentrations or by smothering from deposition of suspended material. There will be some minor effects from the presence of the infrastructure but these are expected to be insignificant and transient. 6 MITIGATION OF IMPACT 6.1 Construction Phase Pile driving should not be conducted in the months when cetaceans are known to migrate past the location. A lookout for marine mammals should be maintained during pile driving operations and they should be stopped if any marine mammals are observed in the vicinity. 6.2 Operational Phase Prior to commissioning tests should be conducted to ascertain the likely levels of contaminants such as heavy metals and suspended solids that can be expected in the slurry water discharge. If these are outside the ANZEC Guidelines trigger levels or exceed Water Quality parameters set by local authorities a practical solution must be found to bring them back to within those limits before the plant can be commissioned. It is unlikely that simple filtration through a mesh screen will be sufficient in that case. During the operational phase regular monitoring of water quality parameters should occur to ensure harmful levels of contaminants are not released into the marine environment.


Aquenal Pty Ltd 4

7 MONITORING OF IMPACT At the time of commissioning a repeat of the survey methodology used by Aquenal in 2005 should be conducted to gather baseline data contemporaneous with the project. If water quality guidelines are not exceeded during the operational phase the survey should be repeated after 2 years. However, if the water quality guidelines are exceeded on more than a set number of occasions the survey should be repeated annually for 2 years. If no impact is found it need not be repeated unless the operation continues for 3 years or more. If an impact is detected the monitoring should continue annually until the impact is no longer detectable.


2290.002 Revision 0 Appendix E

APPENDIX E – CORRESPONDENCE FROM AHT


2290.002 Revision 0 Appendix F

APPENDIX F – RADIATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

DR. ALLAN J BOND AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD NARACOOPA MINERAL SANDS MINE RADIATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Dr. Allan J Bond and Associates Pty. Ltd. Page 2 of 18 Project: Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine RMPV1.3 – 12/12/08

Document Record

Title Dr. Allan J Bond and Associates Pty. Ltd., Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine Radiation Management Plan

Customer Dr. Allan J Bond and Associates Pty. Ltd.

Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction

This document has been prepared by Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. in accordance with a contract to supply goods and/or services and is submitted solely for the use of the authorised recipient. The contents must not be disclosed to third parties other than in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Disclaimer Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. has taken every effort to ensure that the information contained in this document is correct and that estimates, conclusions, or recommendations are reasonably established and based on sound scientific judgment.

File reference ARS – 09-1-063

Report status Issue 1.3

Company details Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. 22 King Street, Blackburn, Victoria 3132 Telephone: +61 3 9877 4898 Facsimile: +61 3 9877 8272 E-mail: [email protected]

Name Signature Date Authors D. Billingsley

12/12/2008

Reviewed by M. Cooper

12/12/2008

Approved by J.G. Young

12/12/2008


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Sources of exposure ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Ilmenite stockpile ................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Exposure pathways ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Radon releases ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Regulatory framework for radiation protection ......................................................................... 6 3.1 Tasmanian radiation safety regulations .................................................................................. 6 3.2 Relevant Australian Codes of Practice ................................................................................... 6 4.0 Working rules and control of exposure .................................................................................... 7 4.1 Dose limits ............................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Estimated occupational doses ................................................................................................ 8 4.3 Radiation protection framework .............................................................................................. 8 4.4 Radiation Safety Officer ......................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.6 Control measures .................................................................................................................. 9 4.7 Hygiene ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.8 Personal protective equipment ..............................................................................................10 5.0 Radiation monitoring and dose assessment ...........................................................................10 5.1 Monitoring programme objectives .........................................................................................10 5.2 Monitoring strategy and programme ......................................................................................10 5.3 Monitoring programme records .............................................................................................11 5.4 Dose assessment .................................................................................................................12 5.5 Investigation levels ...............................................................................................................12 5.6 Quality control and data integrity ...........................................................................................12 6.0 Education and Training ..........................................................................................................13 6.1 Employees............................................................................................................................13 6.2 Radiation Safety Officer ........................................................................................................13 6.3 Training records ....................................................................................................................13 7.0 Transport ...............................................................................................................................13 8.0 Waste management ..............................................................................................................13 8.1 Sources of contaminated waste materials .............................................................................13 8.2 Baseline study ......................................................................................................................14 9.0 Radiation incidents ................................................................................................................14 10.0 Record keeping and reports ...................................................................................................14 10.1 General record keeping ........................................................................................................14 10.2 Reports required for regulatory authority and management ...................................................15 10.3 Incident reports and other operational issues ........................................................................15 10.4 Review of Radiation Management and Radioactive Waste Management Plan .......................15 11.0 References ............................................................................................................................16 12.0 Glossary ................................................................................................................................17


1.0 Introduction Dr. Allan J Bond & Associates Pty. Ltd. (DAJB) is proposing to carry out extraction activities relating to an existing stockpile of mineral sands on a mine lease on King Island. The stockpile is located at a site of a previously abandoned mine located near Naracoopa on the east coast of King Island. Activities proposed for the site involve removal of the stockpile via an adjacent beach using a barge, and transfer to Melbourne. This stage of operations is expected to be of approximately 18 months duration, and hereafter is referred to as the ‘Project’. King Island comes under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian government. The Ilmenite stockpile material for regulatory purposes is known as ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’. The Project is not exempt from the Tasmanian Radiation Protection Act (2005)1 (hereafter referred to as Act) and the Radiation Protection Regulations (2006)2 (hereafter referred to as Regulations) as activity concentrations of the bulk quantities of naturally occurring radioactive material exceed 1 Bg·g-1. For purposes of the Act and Regulations, ‘intention of use’ by the licensee of the Project is the ‘possession’, ‘sale’ and ‘transport’ of radioactive material. One regulatory requirement is the development and implementation of a Radiation Management Plan (RMP) by the operator for the Project. The RMP has been developed to meet the specific requirements of the Regulations and the relevant regulatory authority, in this case, the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The RMP is also intended to be consistent with the national Code of Practice covering mining and milling operations, RPS93. The purpose of the RMP is to ensure that all practices relating to handling of the mineral sands for the Project are conducted as safely as possible and in compliance with the relevant Tasmanian requirements (see Section 3). Compliance with the RMP should ensure that radiation protection measures are in accordance with international best practice, and that actual doses to all employees, contractors and visitors are well below the prescribed statutory limits and are as low as reasonably achievable. It should also minimise both the number of people exposed to radiation during operations, and the possibility of significant, unforeseen exposures to radiation. This RMP outlines the obligations of the licensee (DAJB) and other persons carrying out practices involving radioactive material for DAJB, and applies to all persons who may be exposed to radioactivity and ionising radiation arising during activities at the site. It is assumed that there will be no additional high activity radiation sources on site during the Project, which would normally be included on the licence issued by the DHHS.


2.0 Sources of exposure

2.1 Ilmenite stockpile The results of the analysis of a sand sample collected from the Ilmenite Stockpile during the site background baseline survey conducted by Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. (ARS) in 20054 are presented in Table 1. The results indicate firstly the presence of elevated levels of long-lived radionuclides of both the natural uranium and thorium series. There is equilibrium between the main radioactive progeny of each series. The uranium content (U-238, Ra-226 and Pb-210) varies from 530 to 630 Bq·kg-1, whereas the thorium content (Ra-228 and Th-228) varies from 1080 to 1120 Bq·kg-1. The activity concentrations in sand samples collected from elsewhere on the site including the ‘Old tailings area’ also demonstrates elevated activity concentrations. This is consistent with the presence of heavy minerals in soil or sand at each of the locations sampled.

Table 1: Analysis of sand samples collected from the site in 2005.

Sample location Activity Concentration (becquerel per kg dry weight)a

K-40 U-238

(as Th-234) Ra-226 Pb-210 Ra-228 Th-228

Ilmenite stockpile < 0.04 550 ± 100 630 ± 40 530 ± 100 1080 ± 70

1120 ± 70

Old tailings area < 0.04 680 ± 200 680 ± 50 620 ± 200 1250 ± 100 1365 ± 120

Old mill area 0.06 ± 0.05 450 ± 100 450 ± 30 420 ± 90 420 ± 40 450 ± 60

Beach sand 0.03 ± 0.02 370 ± 80 400 ± 25 420 ± 60 340 ± 30 350 ± 40

Note: a. Activities are in becquerel (Bq) per kilogram. One becquerel equals one nuclear transformation per second. b. Less than (<) values indicate the limit of detection for each isotope for the measurement system. A sample measurement time of at least 15000 seconds was used. c. Stated uncertainties are the total analytical uncertainty (2 sigma), including the standard deviation based on the counting statistics.

2.2 Exposure pathways In general, radiation hazards to workers during Project activities on the mining lease are through three principal pathways, namely external irradiation, inhalation and ingestion. The specific potential exposures are, as follows:

external exposure from the Ilmenite stockpiles during loading/handling activities; internal exposure from the inhalation of dusts containing elevated levels of radioactivity; internal exposure from the inhalation of radon gas released from minerals from

stockpiled materials; and ingestion of material during any direct handling of the material, or from contaminated

equipment and clothing.


Potential exposure pathways to members of the public include off-site releases of dusts or radon gas, contamination of food and water supplies due to the migration of radionuclides from the mine site during operations or following the cessation of activities. The objective of this RMP is to ensure that radiation doses arising from these pathways are maintained within exposure standards deemed acceptable under the relevant Tasmanian Regulations.

2.3 Radon releases Radium (Ra-226) is a decay product of the uranium decay series. Radon (Rn-222) is an inert gas produced when radium decays by alpha emission. Radon gas and its progeny will emanate from the surface of the exposed Ilmenite stockpile. Radon gas and radon progeny are generally not considered to be a significant exposure source in an open-air environment as concentrations are diluted sufficiently by natural air movements. However due to the close proximity of the site office(s) to the stockpile, and the fact that loader operator will be in an enclosed cabin enclosure and potentially spending extended period of time on the stockpile, radon levels will be monitored during operations to assess any potential exposure.

3.0 Regulatory framework for radiation protection 3.1 Tasmanian radiation safety regulations In Tasmania, the principle framework for the regulation of radiation protection are the requirements contained within the Radiation Protection Act (2005)1 and the Radiation Protection Regulations (2006)2. Amongst other things, these regulatory documents define the levels of radioactive substances for their application and contain provisions relating to the limits on occupational and public exposures. The Act and Regulations are administered by the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Operations on the Project are not exempt from the Act and Regulations as activity concentrations of the bulk quantities of naturally occurring radioactive material exceed 1 Bg/g, as per Section 34 of the Act. The Act requires that dealings with radiation sources must be authorised by a licence, issued by the DHHS. Dealings are specified in the Act and include: sell, acquire, possess, use, store, manufacture, transport, install, service, repair and dispose of, and there will be Conditions imposed in relation to the Licence. The Licence expires on 31st August each year unless reviewed. This RMP addresses management of radiation practices associated with the handling of the stockpile material by regular and contract personnel on site. It does not encompass the introduction of a industrial source introduces onto the site for other purposes (e.g. non-destructive testing, borehole logging). Additional regulatory requirements will apply to such sources and the personnel that use them. DAJB is responsible to ensure this is the case, and any relevant licences/certificates are current.

3.2 Relevant Australian Codes of Practice

In conjunction with the relevant Tasmanian State Regulations, the regulatory and organisational aspects for the control of radiation exposure as a result of mining and mineral processing are also covered by several national codes of practice published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) covering radiation dose limitation, transport of radioactive materials and management of waste generated. Specifically, the three relevant national codes are:


Recommendations for Limiting Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and National Standard for Limiting Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (RPS 1)5;

Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral

Processing (RPS 9) 3; Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (RPS 2)6.

Each of these Codes incorporate the philosophy, principles, and recommendations contained within the current international radiation and waste safety standards and guidelines in the various publications of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In terms of dose limitation, RPS15 recommends annual limits for effective doses (see Section 5.1). The radiation protection criteria in RPS1 also recommend the use of dose constraints to restrict doses to lower values than the occupational limit and achieve a level of protection that reflects safe radiological practices. The Mining Code (RPS 9)3 specifically covers the operations involving uranium ores to be exploited for the uranium content, and replaces the 1987 Mining code, “Commonwealth Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (1987)”. This new Code has provisions for, inter alia:

radiation protection standards based upon the above limits; requirements for the development of plans for radiation management during all stages

of the operations and for management of radioactive waste arising from the operation; approvals and authorisations required from the relevant regulatory authority; and employer and employee responsibilities in relation to radiation protection and waste

safety. It is expected that the off-site transport of material arising from the mining activities would be regulated in accordance with the revised Code (RPS2)6 given that the recent one is consistent with current international radiation safety practice and radiation protection regulations. Under this Code however this material is considered exempt from its requirements (see Section 7.0 of this document).

4.0 Working rules and control of exposure 4.1 Dose limits In terms of dose limitation, Section 9 of the Regulations recommends the following limits for effective doses:

for occupational exposure – 20 mSv per year, averaged over 5 years;

for members of the public – 1 mSv per year. The dose limit of 20 mSv per year for occupational exposure would apply to those workers who are exposed as a result of working directly with radiation or radioactive materials i.e. occupationally exposed persons. This limit is the sum of all exposures, both from external radiation and the intake of radioactive materials. Notwithstanding these prescribed dose limits, there is also a requirement to maintain radiation doses As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors taken into account. In other


words, do all that is necessary to further reduce radiation doses if it is feasible and cost-effective to do so. The key tests here are practicability and reasonableness.

4.2 Estimated occupational doses A radiological survey was conducted by Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. (ARS) in 2005 to identify baseline radiation data for occupational exposure purposes on the lease (ARS, 2005). Site measurements using suitable environmental monitoring equipment indicated based on a typical working year (2000 hours, equivalent to a 40 hour working week) it is likely that an individual would receive a dose in excess of 1.0 mSv if working in the vicinity of the existing Ilmenite Stockpile, and the Old Mill Site (now the Office area). Based on the highest average dose rates measured on the stockpile (0.77 ± 0.19 µSv·h-1) an individual could potentially receive 1.5 mSv. A reliable estimate of the inhalation dose from air-borne dust cannot be made at this stage. It is likely to be minimal in comparison with the external dose, and this will be confirmed once air sampling is conducted and the work practices are implemented. The Project is expected to have 2 (two) regular site employees. One person operating the loader, transferring the material between the main Ilmenite stockpile, the temporary stockpile located on the beach, and the barge when moored (hereafter referred to as the Loader Operator), and one employee overseeing site operations (hereafter referred to as Site Manager). It is proposed that both employees are categorised as ‘occupationally exposed persons’.

4.3 Radiation protection framework It is proposed that areas where there is the potential for an individual to receive an exposure to be deemed as ‘Controlled Areas’. These areas will include the Ilmenite Stockpile, the temporary stockpile on the Beach and the loading operations. Occupancy of these areas will be subjected to specific ‘Controlled Area’ requirements in addition to standard site access requirements. As “Controlled Areas”, the Site Manager shall ensure that:

access is limited to those persons who are required to work or perform any duty in the Controlled Area;

the Controlled Areas are clearly signposted where deemed appropriate, and are made known to workers at the site; and

any person entering the lease are made aware of the Controlled Areas and the appropriate precautions to be taken when working in the areas.

4.4 Radiation Safety Officer It is proposed that DAJB will nominate a Health Physicist with Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd., based in Melbourne as its RSO for the Project. The RSO will be suitably trained in the principles and practices of radiation protection, and of the potential radiation hazards associated with the sources of radiation on site. This person will be responsible for ensuring the safety of all persons that may be potentially exposed to radiation as a result of these sources, and ensure that requirements outlined in this document are implemented and adhered to. In particular, the site RSO will:

have sufficient professional and/or technical training to perform the RSO duties in a competent manner;

undertake the measurements, investigations and assessments, make the reports, keep the

records and perform all of the duties required of them,


have the necessary authorisation, equipment, procedures and employee cooperation to

undertake the measurements, investigations and assessments, prepare appropriate reports and maintain the necessary records, and

ensure that the licensee is kept fully informed of the radiation safety status of the site.

A second ARS Health Physicist will be familiarised with the Project to act as a ‘Deputy’ and act as point of contact in the RSO’s absence. Responsibility for day-to-day safety management is vested in the DAJB Site Manager who will oversee the implementation of this RMP and provide general advice to site personnel and visitors as required. The RSO will be the direct point of contact for the Site Manager on radiation safety matters as required.

4.5 Responsibilities All employees and contractors at the Project are responsible for complying with site rules and procedures developed under this RMP.

4.6 Control measures Control methods will be enforced on site to ensure that radiation doses are maintained as low as reasonably achievable (see Table 2). Radiation monitoring conducted to ensure these control measures are adequate is discussed in Section 5. Table 2: Radiation exposure control measures for the Project.

Exposure pathways Control measures

Exposure to gamma radiation from the ore stockpiles and site area.

Site access signage to restrict unauthorised access to site. Restrictions on personnel accessing ‘Controlled Area’ as required.

Inhalation of radioactive dust

Dust suppression as required for nuisance and environmental dust control. Progressive establishment of vegetation on restored surfaces and minimising the area of exposed surfaces. Use of heavy vehicles with enclosed cabins for bulk handling.

Avoid conducting operations in high wind conditions.

Use of half-face respirators if manual handling of the material is required.

Ingestion of ore particles and other contaminated materials

Use of gloves and other appropriate work clothing

Proper workplace and personal hygiene

Surface contamination monitoring of site amenities

Environmental contamination

Use of dedicated heavy vehicles on the site.

Thorough cleaning of all heavy machinery before leaving the site

Surface contamination monitoring of site vehicles.

4.7 Hygiene It is imperative that good hygiene practices are adopted for work associated with the activities for this Project.


Provisions will be made in the toilet/wash-up block toilet block for the storage of site specific Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (See Section 4.8). Site personnel will be instructed to wash their hands and faces before all meal breaks.

4.8 Personal protective equipment Apart from the use of appropriate work clothing, no special protective equipment is envisaged for work activities at the site. It is proposed, however, that dedicated work boots will be provided for the site. These will be worn by all personnel when on site and remain on site for the duration of the Project. In situations where there may be unusual exposure conditions (e.g. an individual is required to shovel the material by hand), additional personal protective equipment will be required. If manual handling of the material is required a half-face respirator with ‘P2’ rated dust cartridge(s) will be worn by personnel involved. It is envisaged however that this work will be kept to minimum as the bulk of the handling will be conducted using the dedicated loader.

5.0 Radiation monitoring and dose assessment 5.1 Monitoring programme objectives The main purpose of radiation monitoring of personnel is to collect relevant exposure data for health protection. The primary radiological hazard associated with the operations is chronic exposure to low levels of external radiation. Airborne radioactivity from the mineral sand material also poses an internal exposure hazard however this expected to be minimal. The consequential health risk therefore depends upon the average exposure received by an individual worker over their working time (in other words, the total radiation dose).

5.2 Monitoring strategy and programme The radiation monitoring program consists of two different assessment components, consisting of ‘passive’ and ‘real time’ measurements. Continuous ‘passive’ monitoring will be undertaken for the duration of the Project to monitor long term exposure trends. This will entail long-term passive monitoring such as TLD monitoring and radon track-etch detectors (see Table 3). ‘Real time’ operations monitoring will be performed to quantify the risk present, and assess the effectiveness of the controls in place to minimise an individual’s potential radiation exposure. This will be conducted following start-up, then quarterly for the first 6-months, and 6-monthly thereafter, at locations at the discretion of the RSO. Monitoring will be undertaken by a suitably trained health physicist who is capable of interpreting the results, and undertaking a level of monitoring based on these results. This work will be performed either by the RSO, or an ARS Health Physicist under the direct supervision of the ARS RSO. All monitoring will be conducted with close consultation with the Site Manager. It is important that the radiation monitoring remains subject to review and adjustment in light of exposure trends or monitoring results obtained over the course of the Project.


Table 3: Proposed radiation monitoring program for the Project.

Exposure pathway Hazard Monitoring method

Method Frequency Continuous passive monitoring

External radiation

Gamma rays Passive dosemeters to measure personal radiation dose Hp(10). Thermo luminescent dosemeters (TLDs) used.

All permanent site personnel (2), changed quarterly.

Area TLDs utilised. ~6 locations, changed quarterly.

Inhalation Radon Area sampling using continuous monitors (track etch detectors).

Area sampling (~4 locations including loader cabin), changed quarterly.

Real-time operational monitoring

External radiation

Gamma rays Dose rate measurements with hand held instrument.

Conducted quarterly for first 6-months, 6-monthly thereafter, at locations at the discretion of the RSO.

Inhalation Long-lived alpha emitters in dust

Area sampling using low and medium flow-rate air samplers.


Off-site contamination

Long-lived alpha emitters

Contamination monitoring of vehicles, work surfaces, lunchroom, office, etc using hand-held alpha/beta dual phosphor contamination monitor. Wipes where applicable to identify if transferable.


5.3 Monitoring programme records The following arrangements for the storage of radiation monitoring records will be implemented by DAJB. The monitoring data recorded shall include the following:

the numerical results of measurements; a suitable description of the location of measurements, including the name and

job title of sampled worker if relevant; the type of work and operations being performed during sampling; the sampling instrument used, its accessories and the method of analysis; the date and exact time of sampling; the duration of the workers' exposure, the use or non-use of respiratory

protection and other comments relating to the exposure evaluation; and the names of the persons responsible for the sampling and for the analytical

work; and where applicable relevant information on the functioning of the process,

engineering controls, ventilation and weather conditions.


The management of personal and site records are discussed in Section 10.1.

5.4 Dose assessment Radiation dose limits apply to the sum of relevant doses from external exposure in the specified period (e.g. for a calendar year) and the relevant committed doses from intakes of radionuclide’s (e.g. via inhalation or ingestion) in the same period. The period for calculating the committed dose to workers is 50 years (i.e. the dose is the total dose that will be received over the 50 years following the intake). The total effective dose for workers will be calculated according to the following formula:

ET = HP (d) + hRD.IRD + hRnP.IRnP + hTnP.ITnP

where HP (d) is the personal dose equivalent from penetrating (i.e. external or gamma) radiation during the year (mSv).

h is the committed effective dose per unit exposure or intake and RD refers to radioactive dust RnP refers to radon (Rn-222) progeny

I is the exposure or intake in the case of radioactive dust, expressed as Bq of gross alpha activity, or, in the case of radon progeny, as mJ∙hm-3

For intake of radioactive dust, the relative activities of thorium and uranium series radionuclide’s need to be established in order to derive the appropriate dose conversion factors. Intake-to-dose conversion factors are provided in the Code (RPS 9)2. The management of personal and site records are discussed in Section 10.1.

5.5 Investigation levels

Investigation and reporting will be implemented if monitoring indicates any unusually high or unexpected results for a measured radiation parameter. The investigation may reveal a previously undetected source of radiation or a practice that has changed since done previously. The investigation may also reveal an erroneous assessment or an issue with the monitoring technique.

5.6 Quality control and data integrity DAJB will ensure that the following quality control issues are addressed where radiation monitoring equipment is used:

All equipment is to be stored and handled in a manner to prevent deterioration and damage.

All equipment is labelled to indicate the equipment number and calibration status. The calibration status is traceable through calibration records maintained by the RSO.

Where possible, equipment is checked and calibrated using certified equipment, which are traceable to nationally or internationally recognised standards. Instrument maintenance and calibration details will be maintained.

Equipment is not used if the calibration life has expired.

Where equipment is found to require significant adjustment or re-calibration, previous measurements from that equipment are assessed for validity. This assessment is documented.


External consultants will be suitably qualified and experienced (e.g. licensed with the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services).

6.0 Education and Training 6.1 Employees Radiation safety training for all personnel who work at the mine site will be included in a General Site Induction. The induction will include a description of radiation hazards on site, practices for minimising exposure to those hazards, and outline the radiation monitoring requirements and other responsibilities expected of all personnel whilst on site. Responsibilities under the Tasmanian Act and Regulations will be covered. The induction will include a test to demonstrate their understanding of the important radiation safety principles and site requirements.

6.2 Radiation Safety Officer The person appointed as Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) for the Project will have sufficient professional and/or technical training to perform the RSO responsibilities as outlined in Section 4.4 of this Plan.

6.3 Training records All induction and training programs will be documented and a record of training given to individual workers will be maintained. The records will include the dates when the training was provided, and the types of training received. Training schedules and records will be made available for inspection by the DHHS.

7.0 Transport With respect to off-site transport of materials the stockpile material is exempt from the requirements of the ARPANSA Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (RPS 2)6. Paragraph 107 of the Code states that it does not apply to “natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are either in their natural state, or have only been processed for purposes other than for extraction of the radionuclides, and which are not intended to be processed for use of these radionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values ... calculated in accordance with paragraphs 402–406.” Consequently the actual limits for the minerals and associated products are raised to an aggregate of 10 Bq·g-1 (10,000 Bq·kg-1) for natural uranium and thorium. Specific activity calculations based on the Ilmenite stockpile radionuclide analysis in Table 1 have identified that the 10 Bq·g-1 limit is not exceeded and consequently the Code does not apply.

8.0 Waste management

8.1 Sources of contaminated waste materials During this stage of operations it is unlikely there will be any significant ‘radioactive’ contaminated waste generated.


Run-off from the washing of heavy machinery/equipment on site will be collected where possible and remain on site. Any items that are deemed ‘contaminated’ and cannot be decontaminated will remain on site. Based on the activity concentrations of the stockpile material this is considered to be minimal.

8.2 Baseline study A comprehensive baseline study of the radiological status of the Project site was conducted by ARS in 2005 (see section 4.2). This includes systematic measurements of external gamma radiation dose rates across the site, and the determination of the radionuclide content of soil and mineralised material. The baseline survey data provides a basis for comparison with future survey data, both during the Project, and at the rehabilitation phase to ensure any impact on it the environment is minimised.

9.0 Radiation incidents A radiation incident is an incident adversely affecting, or likely to adversely affect, the health or safety of any person because of exposure to radiation. There are no scenarios envisaged that would be considered as a radiation emergency.

10.0 Record keeping and reports 10.1 General record keeping Records shall be kept for a period of time determined by Tasmanian legislative requirements. Where this has not been prescribed, the records, or a suitable summary of the data, shall be retained for:

at least 50 years where the record is representative of the personal exposures of identifiable employees, or until an individual has reached the age of 75 years; and

at least five years, or as required by any license or permit in place for the site, in all other cases.

DAJP management will maintain the following records:

Licence issued by the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under the relevant Act, and any conditions of license issued under that Act;

This Radiation Management Plan as approved by the DHHS; Any approvals issued in relation to the Act or Regulations; Reports by the Radiation Safety Officer; Details of radiation monitoring equipment including calibration certificates utilised for

the monitoring programme; Incident reports; Quarterly and Annual Radiation Monitoring Reports (See section 10.2); and Results of all radiation monitoring and personnel exposure assessments (see Sections

5.3 and 5.4) Personal monitoring records, including air sampling results estimated or calculated exposure, and dose estimation methodologies, will be maintained electronically and as hard copies by DAJB. Access to individual and summary exposure records will be provided to employees, and the regulatory authority on request, with due consideration to the confidentiality of the records. No records will be destroyed without prior consultation with the Tasmanian DHHS, and appropriate measures implemented for their management should the Project close.


10.2 Reports required for regulatory authority and management The following reports will be prepared for the duration of the Project:

Quarterly Radiation Monitoring Summary (DAJB distribution) – containing information about the quarterly monitoring conducted by ARS and the effectiveness of the controls in place to minimise personnel exposure, and that to the environment.

Annual Radiation Monitoring Report (DAJB distribution and DHHS) – containing a

summary of the results of the radiation monitoring program and assessment of radiation doses for an annual period. The report also contains discussion of the effectiveness of controls in place. The Annual Report will be submitted within 8 weeks after the end of the reporting period or within a time period agreed to by the DHHS.

10.3 Incident reports and other operational issues It is unlikely there will be any situations arise that will be deemed as a ‘radiation incident’ However in the event of an incident occurring a written incident report will be produced. This will be submitted to the DHHS as soon as practicable but not later than 5 days after the day on which the incident occurred. This report will include a description of the incident, investigations implemented including radiation monitoring results, actions taken to remedy the situation, and actions taken to prevent a recurrence of the incident.

10.4 Review of Radiation Management and Radioactive Waste Management Plan The Radiation Management Plan and Radioactive Waste Management Plan will be reviewed every 12 months.

As outlined in section 5.2, in relation to radiation monitoring, the frequency remains subject to review and adjustment in light of exposure trends or monitoring results obtained over the course of the 12 month period for which the Plan is in place.


11.0 References

1. Tasmanian Radiation Protection Act, 2005.

2. Tasmanian Radiation Protection Regulations, 2006.

3. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Code of Practice and Safety

Guide – Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing, Radiation Protection Series No. 9 (RPS9), Commonwealth of Australia, 2005.

4. Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd., Report on the Radiation Survey of the King Island

sand mine, Southern Deposit –September 2005.

5. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Recommendations and National Standard –Recommendations for Limiting Exposure to Ionising radiation (1995) and National Standard for Limiting Occupational Exposure to Ionising Radiation [NOHSC:1013 (1995)], Radiation Protection Series No. 1 (RPS1), Commonwealth of Australia, 2002.

6. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, Radiation Protection Series No. 2 (RPS2), Commonwealth of Australia, 2008.


12.0 Glossary Accident an unintended event which causes, or has the potential to cause, employees or members of the public to be exposed to radiation from which the individual doses or collective doses received do not lie within the range of variation which is acceptable for normal operation. Activity the measure of quantity of radioactive materials, except when used in the term ‘human activity’. Approval a written agreement by the relevant regulatory authority that a plan or proposal meets the requirements of the relevant Code. Authorisation the granting by a regulatory body of written permission for an operator or class of operators to perform specified activities. Controlled area an area to which access is subject to control and in which employees are required to follow specific procedures aimed at controlling exposure to radiation. Critical group a group of members of the public comprising individuals who are relatively homogeneous with regard to age, diet and those behavioural characteristics that affect the doses received and who receive the highest radiation doses from a particular practice. Designated worker a person whose annual radiation dose may exceed 1 mSv per year, considering both internal and external contributions. Disposal the emplacement of waste in an approved, specified facility without intention of retrieval. Disposal may also include the approved direct discharge of effluent (e.g. liquid or gaseous waste) into the environment with subsequent dispersion. Dose a generic term which may mean absorbed dose, equivalent dose or effective dose depending on context. Dose constraint a prospective restriction on anticipated dose, primarily intended to be used to discard undesirable options in an optimisation calculation. In occupational exposure, a dose constraint may be used to restrict the options considered in the design of the working environment for a particular category of employee. Effective dose a measure of dose which takes into account both the type of radiation involved and the radiological sensitivities of the organs and tissues irradiated. Exemption a designation, by the relevant regulatory authority, for sources of radiation that are not subject to regulatory control because they present such a low radiological hazard; the deliberate omission of a practice from regulatory control, or from some aspects of regulatory control, by the relevant regulatory authority. Exposure the circumstance of being exposed to radiation,


Incident an event which causes, or has the potential to cause, abnormal exposure of employees or members of the public and which requires investigation of its causes and consequences. Such an event may require corrective action within the program for control of radiation, but is not of such scale as to be classified as an accident. Investigation level a reference level of an environmental or dosimetric quantity, such as absorbed dose rate; if measured values of that quantity are found to consistently exceed the investigation level, the cause or implications of the situation should be investigated. Member of the public any individual in the population who, for radiation protection and safety purposes, may be subject to actual, or potential exposure to radiation incidentally as a result of mining or mineral processing operations and related activities; this excludes exposure through occupational involvement in those activities. Non-designated worker a person whose annual radiation dose is unlikely to exceed 1 mSv, considering both internal and external contributions Occupational exposure exposure of a person to radiation which occurs in the course of that person’s work and which is not excluded exposure. Occupationally exposed person a person who has direct involvement in work that requires exposure to radiation Operation an instance of a practice; a particular human activity which may result in exposure to ionizing radiation and to which a program of radiation protection applies. Operator any person or entity responsible for a mining or mineral processing operation which may lead to exposure to ionizing radiation. Public exposure exposure incurred by members of the public from radiation sources, excluding any occupational or medical exposure and the normal local natural background radiation but including exposure from authorised sources and practices and from intervention situations. Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) an individual technically competent in radiation protection matters relevant for a given type of practice who is designated by the operator or employer to oversee the application of the requirements of the RMP. Radioactive waste radioactive waste means material that contains or is contaminated with radionuclides at concentrations or activities greater than clearance levels as established by the relevant regulatory authority, and for which no use is foreseen. Relevant regulatory authority the radiation protection authority or authorities designated, or otherwise recognised, for regulatory purposes in connection with protection and safety in mining and mineral processing.


2290.002 Revision 0 Appendix G

APPENDIX G – MARINE PESTS MANAGEMENT PLAN

MARINE PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN

For

Dr Allan J. Bond & Associates Pty Ltd

November 2008

Final

Project No: 2290.002

F 100 05, Revision 6, 2 July 2008

Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine Marine Pest Management Plan

2290.002 Final Authorisation

REPORT ISSUE AUTHORISATION PROJECT: Marine Pest Management Plan Project No: 2290.002 AUTHOR: Dick Shaw BSc (Hons) 2002, Masters of Env Planning 2004 Date Purpose of Issue/Nature of

Revision Rev Reviewed

by Issue Authorised by

This Report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services agreed upon between SEMF Pty Ltd (SEMF) and the Client. To the best of SEMF’s knowledge, the report presented herein represents the Client’s intentions at the time of printing of the report. However, the passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may result in the actual contents differing from that described in this report. In preparing this report SEMF has relied upon data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information provided by the client, and other individuals and organisations referenced herein. Except as otherwise stated in this report, SEMF has not verified the accuracy or completeness of such data, surveys, analysis, designs, plans and other information. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose by third parties. This report does not purport to provide legal advice. Readers should engage professional legal advisers for this purpose. SEMF Pty. Ltd Level 2, 162 Macquarie Street, Hobart Tasmania 7001 Australia ACN 117 492 814 ABN 24 117 492 814 Telephone: (03) 6231 1211 Facsimile: (03) 6234 8709 Email: [email protected]


2290.002 Final Contents

CONTENTS

1. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE:....................................................................1

2. COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS...............................................................1

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS..............................................................1

3.1 LOCAL:................................................................................................1 3.2 STATE (TASMANIA):..............................................................................1 3.3 STATE (VICTORIA): ...............................................................................1 3.4 COMMONWEALTH: ................................................................................1 3.5 INTERNATIONAL:...................................................................................2

4. DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................2

4.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE PLAN ....................................................................2

5. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................3

5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................3 5.2 APPROACH ..........................................................................................3 5.3 SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION: ...............................................................3 5.3.1 MINING LEASE LOCATION...............................................................3 5.3.2 LOCATION OF BARGE LOADING FACILITY .........................................3

6. MARINE PESTS.......................................................................................6

6.1 CAUSES OF MARINE PEST SPREAD AND INVASION: .................................6 6.2 DISTRIBUTION OF MARINE PEST SPECIES IN TASMANIAN STATE WATERS .6 6.3 TARGET MARINE PEST SPECIES ............................................................6

7. REGULATORY OVERVIEW ....................................................................7

7.1 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS..............................................................7 7.2 NATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS...................................................................7 7.3 VICTORIAN ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................7 7.4 TASMANIAN ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................7

8. ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................8

8.1 MINE MANAGER: ..................................................................................8 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER: .................................................................8 8.3 STAFF AND CONTRACTORS: ..................................................................8 8.4 MARINE ENVIRONMENT OFFICER: ..........................................................8

9. MANAGEMENT METHODS & PROCEDURES.......................................9

9.1 STAGE: SHIP OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES - LOADING AND UNLOADING ....9 9.1.1 WHEN LOADING BALLAST: ..............................................................9 9.1.2 WHEN DISPOSING BALLAST: ...........................................................9

9.2 PORT MELBOURNE SPECIFIC - ABALONE VIRAL GANGLIONEURITIS (AVG) 9 9.3 STAGE: SHIP OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES - OPTIONS FOR BALLAST,

SEDIMENT & BIOFOUL MANAGEMENT ..................................................10 9.3.1 NON-RELEASE ............................................................................10 9.3.2 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE OR FLOW-THROUGH..........................10


2290.002 Final Contents

9.3.3 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.............................................................10 9.3.4 BIOFOULING MANAGEMENT..........................................................11

9.4 STAGE: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................11 9.4.1 TO VICTORIA ..............................................................................11 9.4.2 TO KING ISLAND..........................................................................11

9.5 STAGE: MONITORING..........................................................................12

10. STAGE: ALL STAGES.......................................................................13

10.1 MANAGEMENT OF COMPLAINTS ...........................................................13 10.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING ........................13 10.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF SYSTEM CHANGES ..............................................13

11. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS.............................................................14

12. REFERENCES....................................................................................14

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – SOUTHERN AREA (PART 2) OF MININE LEASE 1673 P/M......................4 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BARGE LOADING FACILITY. .......................5 APPENDICES Appendix A: Known Marine Pests in Tasmanian coastal Waters Appendix B: Ballast Water Management in Victorian State Waters - Flowchart Appendix C: Victorian Ballast Water Report Form Appendix D: EPA Ballast Water Log Appendix E: International Maritime Organisation’s Ballast Water Log


2290.002 Final 1

1. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE:

The objective of the Marine Pest Management Plan (the Plan) is to:

• Reduce the risk of translocating marine pests between Tasmanian and Victorian state waters through application of good bio-security practices.

The scope of this Plan is to outline the management measures that will help reduce spread of marine pests within Australian domestic waters. This Plan is designed to apply to the loading, unloading and transport of mineral products between King Island and Port Melbourne.

2. COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS The community of Naracoopa expects that the operations of Dr Allan J. Bond & Associates Pty Ltd will be managed in a manner to minimise any potential threat or environmental harm from marine pests.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Local: • King Island Council Development Consent for Development Application DA 06/00A –

issued 8th November 2002.

3.2 State (Tasmania): • Environmental Protection Notice 7678/1 issued under section 44 of the EMPCA

1994.

• Condition FF4(1) of EPN 7678/1 – that at least one month prior to the arrival of the landing barge in Tasmanian State waters, a Marine Pest Management Plan (MPMP) must be submitted to the Director for approval.

• Condition FF4(3) of EPN 7678/1 – the MPMP must comply with the relevant requirements of the International Ballast Water Management Requirements, the Draft Domestic Ballast Water Management Arrangements and the National Best Practice Guidelines for Commercial Non-trading Vessels or any subsequent version of these documents.

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994;

• Environmental Protection (Sea dumping) Act 1987;

• Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997.

3.3 State (Victoria): • Environment Protection (Ships’ Ballast Water) Regulations 2006.

• Waste Management Policy (Ships Ballast Water) Domestic Ballast Water 2004 – Victorian Government Gazette.

• Protocol for Environmental Management: Domestic ballast water management in Victorian state waters 2008.

3.4 Commonwealth: • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

• Environmental Protection Act 1970.

• Quarantine Act 1908.

• Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry.


2290.002 Final 2

• Intergovernmental Agreement on a National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions (IGA) 2005.

• National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions

3.5 International: • International Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic

Organisms and Pathogens via Ships Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges – International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

4. DEFINITIONS

Condition A condition of Environmental Protection Notice No: 7678/1. MPMP Marine Pest Management Plan The Company Dr Allan J. Bond & Associates Pty Ltd. or DAJB The Permit King Island Council Development Consent for DA 06/00A issued 8th

November 2002. AQIS Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries EPA Environment Protection Authority - Victoria Biofouling Biofouling is the accumulation of marine organisms (plants or animals)

that attach to objects immersed in salt water (such as vessels' hulls, ropes, anchors and other equipment).

Ballast Water Water, including any entrained marine organisms and other sediments and solids, used to alter the draft, trim manoeuvrability and stability of ships.

Marine Pest Any aquatic animal, plants or pathogen that, if introduced to waters outside their natural or previous distribution, may pose a risk to human health or the environment, and may affect the biodiversity and ecological processes of the marine ecosystem and impact on any other beneficial uses.

4.1 Limitations of the Plan Relevant to activities associated with the Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine only. The effectiveness of the Plan is limited to measures used to reduce the risk of translocating marine pests found in ballast water, ballast sediment and as biofoul only. It is not the intention of this Plan to provide for management of marine pest species known to exist in Tasmanian state waters or elsewhere. Management of newly detected marine pest species will follow the Australian Emergency Marine Pest Plan (EMP Plan)1. This Plan applies to vessel movements between King Island and Port Melbourne only. This Plan does not apply to vessel movements elsewhere in Tasmanian or Victorian state waters, such movements are the responsibility of the ship Master and owner. Should the vessel for which this Plan applies be sourced from another country, it is assumed that the vessel will en-route comply with the International Maritime Organisations - International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments.

1 Australian Emergency Marine Pest Plan (EMPPlan) Working Draft 2005. Control Centres Management Manual. Natural Heritage Trust.


2290.002 Final 3

5. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

5.1 Project Description

DAJB have Permit approval to remove an existing ilmenite stockpile from mining lease ML1673 P/M on the east coast of King Island. The removal of the existing mineral sands stockpile will take approximately 18 months, where it will be transported from King Island to Port Melbourne by a purpose-built barge.

Barge mooring facilities will be constructed towards the southern end of Fraser Beach (see Figure 2). To load the barge, the vessel will be moored in position 2-3 hours before high tide and materials loaded via front-end loader from a temporary stockpile located in close proximity to the barge mooring facility. Loading is expected to take approximately two hours. The time taken to load the barge, transport and unload in Port Melbourne, and return for another load is expected to be 37 hours. Based on the amount of time for a complete cycle of loading operations, it is estimated that there will approximately 3-4 trips per week on average, allowing for delays due to poor weather conditions.

No imported material will be used in the construction of the mooring facility, including the shore ramp and the whole structure is considered temporary in nature.

5.2 Approach

This Plan will adopt and implement a risk-based approach to minimise the risk of translocating marine pest species. The Plan recommends compliance with existing Victorian legislation and recommends the adoption of voluntary mechanisms to reduce translocation risk of vessel movements from Victoria to Tasmania.

5.3 Site-Specific Information:

5.3.1 Mining Lease Location

The site location relevant to this Plan is shown in Figure 1 Mining Lease 1673 P/M is split in to two parts, the Northern Area referred to as Part 1 and the Southern Area, Part 2. The combined area of ML 1673 P/M is 933 hectares. Part 1 is located at the northern end of Fraser Beach, and is bordered by Sea Elephant Road to the west, Sea Elephant River to the north and Cowper Point to the east. Part 2, the focus of this Plan, borders the southern end of Sea Elephant Road to the west, Sea Elephant Bay to the east and Fraser River to the south.

5.3.2 Location of Barge Loading Facility

The location of the proposed barge loading facility on King Island is shown in Figure 2. At present the specific location of the unloading facility is unknown but is expected to be somewhere in Port Melbourne.

251000 252000 253000

55

78

00

05

57

90

00

55

80

00

0

Southern Area (Part 2) ML 1673 P/M

Datum: GDA94Date: 16/9/2008 Prepared by: SEMFTasMap: Sea Elephant Naracoopa Project: 2290.002Client: A.J. Bond & Associates Pty Ltd

Naracoopa MineralSands Mine

Website: www.semf.com.au

·0 250125

Meters


2290.002 Final 6

6. MARINE PESTS

6.1 Causes of Marine Pest Spread and Invasion: Large numbers of marine pests have been translocated into, and throughout the Australian environment by a variety of means, in particular through ships’ ballast water and by attachment to ships’ hulls, anchors and other structures (referred to as biofouling). Ballast water is essential to safe and efficient shipping and is taken on board to control trim, list, draught, stability and ship stress. Ships usually take up ballast water when unloading cargo, therefore the greatest threat to marine pest invasion is associated with the port where goods are taken on board.

6.2 Distribution of Marine Pest Species in Tasmanian State Waters Some marine pest species such as the European green crab (Carcinus maenas) and the European clam (Corbula gibba) are distributed throughout a large area of Tasmania, however, populations of many introduced marine pests are restricted to specific regions within the State. For example, the Northern Pacific seastar (Asterias amurensis) and the Japanese kelp (Undaria pinnatifida) have only established populations on the east coast of the State, while the European fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii), and the Asian bag mussel (Musculista senhousia) are restricted to the north coast. Because of a lack of baseline data, the distribution and impact of many marine pests and diseases within Tasmanian coastal waters is difficult to prove2. A 2003 survey of marine pests at several of Tasmania’s small ports provides the most recent understanding of marine pest distribution. With regard to King Island, the survey detected a total of 16 marine pest species at Grassy Harbour, 13 of which were cryptogenic; importantly, none of the six ‘target pest species’ were detected at Grassy3. A list of pest species known to be present in Tasmanian waters is presented in Appendix 1. Target Marine Pest Species In 2005 the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments (with the exception of New South Wales) signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement to implement a National System to prevent and manage marine pest incursions (the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions). The System has three key objectives; 1) Prevention, 2) Emergency Response, and 3) Ongoing Management and Control. Objective three relates to the management of marine pests already established in Australian waters, and is co-ordinated by the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). To respond effectively to established marine pest species, the National Introduced Marine Pest Co-ordinating Group (NIMPCG) was formed from which Control Plans were developed for six agreed species otherwise known as Target Species. The six Target Species are:

• Northern Pacific Seastar (Asterias amurensis);

• Japanese Kelp (Undaria pinnatifida);

• European Green Crab (Carcinus maenas);

• European fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii);

• Asian bag mussel (Musculista senhousia), and

• European Clam (Corbula gibba).

At present each of the six target species are known to occur in Tasmanian state waters, however their distribution is limited and none of the six are known to occur on King Island.

2 State of the Environment Report – Tasmania 2003. Resource Planning & Development Commission.

3 Exotic Marine Pests Survey – Small Tasmanian Ports. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment. Aquenal Pty Ltd 2003.


2290.002 Final 7

Recommendations contained within this Plan promote sound biosecuirty practices that will significantly reduce the translocation risk of all marine pest species between Tasmanian and Victorian state waters.

7. REGULATORY OVERVIEW

7.1 International Conventions • International ship movements are regulated by the International Convention for the

Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention). In the absence of domestic ballast water regulation, Australia adopts by default the IMO Convention.

• The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the lead agency for the management of ballast water taken up overseas, but does not regulate ballast water taken up inside Australia’s territorial sea.

7.2 National Arrangements • The Intergovernmental Agreement on a National System for the Prevention and

Management of Marine Pest Incursions (IGA) took effect in 2005. The IGA outlines the roles and responsibilities for implementing the National system, prevention, emergency management, ongoing management and control.

• DAFF is leading implementation of National Ballast Water Management Arrangements under the Australian National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. These arrangements are due to be implemented in 2009.

7.3 Victorian Arrangements • Ship owners and their masters must manage their domestic ballast water in

accordance with the Waste Management Policy (Ships’ Ballast Water), the Protocol for Environment Protection (Ships’ Ballast Water Regulations 2006), and the Protocol for Environmental Management – Domestic Ballast Water Management in Victorian State Waters.

7.4 Tasmanian Arrangements • At present there are no legislative measures that directly govern disposal of

domestically sourced ballast water in to Tasmanian state waters.

• The Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997 (TAS) gives the Marine and Safety Authority certain powers to deal with environmental matters aboard ships in Tasmanian ports. These matters can include dealings with ballast water, although there have not been regulations designed to establish and support a system of inspection and enforcement.


2290.002 Final 8

8. ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

8.1 Mine Manager

The Mine Manager is directly responsible for ensuring:

• That this Plan is implemented across the operation;

• That immediate mitigation action is taken in the event of any incident causing or threatening environmental nuisance or environmental harm;

• That community complaints are recorded and addressed;

• That monitoring, assessment and statutory reporting pertaining to management of marine pests are carried out;

• That this Plan is reviewed as necessary, such as: after any changes to the operation that could increase risk to the marine environment; after changes to accepted policy, protocol, guidelines and/or legislation; or every three years coinciding with the EMP Review Report.

8.2 Environmental Manager

The Environmental Manager is responsible for:

• Reporting to the Mine Manager on the implementation of this Plan;

• Implementing this Plan;

• Keeping this Plan up to date;

• Informing all staff and contractors of their roles and responsibilities pertaining to marine pest management;

• Holding training refreshers when marine pest management changes are to be implemented; and

• Ensuring that all complaints are investigated, mitigation measures are put in place and resolutions found, implemented and documented in a Public Complaints Register.

8.3 Staff and Contractors All staff and contractors are responsible for:

• Applying all reasonable marine pest management methods and practices available to them to help reduce the risk of translocating marine pests;

• Complying with all Victorian ballast water policies, protocols and regulations;

• Immediately reporting any incidents or activities to the Environmental Manager that could significantly increase the risk of translocating marine pests; and

• Being proactive, by reporting any potential incidents and suggesting management methods or improvements to reduce risk of translocating marine pests.

8.4 Marine Environment Officer A Senior Marine Environment Officer4 is employed by the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) to carry out the defining functions of the DPIW.

4 Alastair Morton, Senior Marine Environment Officer (Pests & Assessments) Marine Resources. DPIW. Level 4, Franklin Wharf, GPO Box 44, Hobart, TAS 7001. e-mail: [email protected] Ph: 03 6233 7577.


2290.002 Final 9

9. MANAGEMENT METHODS & PROCEDURES The uptake of ballast water in Port Melbourne where several marine pest trigger species are present, poses a risk to King Islands’ ‘pest-free’ status. The ship’s Master/owner will adopt and implement several measures to reduce the risk of translocating marine pests.

9.1 Stage: Ship Operational Procedures - Loading and Unloading

9.1.1 When loading ballast:

• Every effort should be made to ensure that only clean ballast water is taken on to minimise uptake of sediments with ballast water.

• Where practicable, the ship should endeavour to avoid taking on ballast water in shallow water areas, or in the vicinity of dredging operations.

• Areas where there is a known outbreak of a disease that is communicable through ballast water, or in areas where phytoplankton blooms are occurring, should be avoided wherever practicable.

• Where possible, the vessels engine(s) will be stopped during loading and unloading procedures to minimise mobilisation of sediments.

9.1.2 When disposing ballast:

• Ballast disposal systems will be used if present at destination Ports.

• Upon request, ballast water samples will be provided to the relevant authorities.

9.2 Port Melbourne Specific - Abalone Viral Ganglioneuritis (AVG) Following an outbreak of AVG in Victoria in mid-2006, a number of steps have been taken to help protect Tasmania’s abalone industry. Research to date indicates that organic matter (i.e. kelp) is a major vector for virus mobility and translocation. Storm events and/or prevailing wind directions could result in accumulations of free-floating macro-algae that have the potential to carry AVG.

• It is highly recommended that the ship’s Master when in port or looking to dock, avoid areas where practical; that contain significant amounts free-floating macro-algae.

• Care should be taken to avoid mooring for extended periods of time in waters with large amounts of free-floating kelp.

• Care should be taken to avoid taking on ballast water in areas with large amounts of free-floating kelp.


2290.002 Final 10

9.3 Stage: Ship Operational Procedures - Options for Ballast, Sediment & Biofoul Management

The following recommendations apply to all trips between King Island and Port Melbourne, irrespective of port of origin. In general, the vessel will take on ballast water in Port Melbourne whilst unloading cargo and then the vessel will undergo a mid-Strait exchange or flow-through, before discharging ballast at the barge mooring facility on Fraser Beach whilst loading cargo. There is scope for ballast to be taken on board at King Island, to improve stability and safety of the vessel in poor weather, or to compensate for low cargo volumes.

9.3.1 Non-release The most effective means of preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships’ ballast waters and sediments is to avoid where possible, the discharge of ballast water.

9.3.2 Ballast Water Exchange or Flow-through

• A mid-Strait exchange/flow-through should be performed in waters in excess of 30 metres deep, away from known reef structures.

• Ballast exchange should aim to ensure adequate flushing of ballast tanks, chain lockers and other locations where silt may accumulate.

• For an effective exchange (95% of total ballast volume), all tanks must be drained until pump action is lost to minimise the likelihood of residual organism survival.

• In cases whereby an ‘at sea’ exchange of ballast is not possible, a ‘flow through’ exchange is acceptable, whereby a minimum of 300% of the total volume of ballast must be exchanged.

9.3.3 Sediment Management

• All areas that have the potential to accumulate sediment such as anchors, cables, chain lockers and suction wells must be routinely cleaned to reduce translocation risk of marine pests. Routinely denotes once every three months if good ballast conditions exist during uptake. Additional cleaning must be conducted if ballast uptake is performed in turbid conditions more than twice in one week.

• Sediment disposal will be done in a manner that prevents the material from entering the marine environment.

• Where an initial flush is likely to include ‘significant’ amounts of sediment (e.g. water contained in bilge well of a hold space), these waters (and sediment) will be drawn off by suitable means into holding drums, tanks or by carrying out initial release into an approved discharge area, before full discharge takes place.


2290.002 Final 11

9.3.4 Biofouling Management

Guidelines, voluntary protocols and regulations for managing biofoul-related marine pests are currently being developed for all marine sectors under the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. The ships’ Master will implement those measures deemed necessary to comply with the National System once developed. In the interim:

• The ships Master/owner will have a diver visually inspect the hull at six monthly intervals for presence of ‘excessive’ biofoul and damage to antifouling surfaces.

• The ship Master/owner will apply the Guidelines for the Prevention of Biofouling on Commercial Vessels5.

9.4 Stage: Reporting Requirements

9.4.1 To Victoria

The ship’s Master must provide EPA (Victoria) with accurate information on the status and risk of the ship’s ballast water prior to entry into Victorian waters. This information must be submitted to EPA as soon as possible, preferably 24 hours before entering Victorian waters, to prevent any unnecessary time delays. Compulsory measures include:

• Every ship visiting a Victorian port must submit a Ballast Water Report Form to EPA (see Appendix C).

• A Ballast Water Log (see Appendix D) need only be submitted when the ship has declared it has domestic ballast water on board.

• All vessels carrying domestic ballast water must perform a risk assessment on the ballast water to be discharged in to Victorian waters, using the Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS).

The BWDSS will assess the domestic ballast water as either low or high risk. If the BWDSS is not used, ballast water is regarded as high risk. High risk ballast water must not be discharged to Victorian State Waters. A flowchart showing the steps to determine ballast water risk is provided in Appendix B.

9.4.2 To King Island

In the absence of national ballast water management arrangements, the ships Master/owner will complete a Ballast Water Log Book for each movement from Victoria to King Island. An example of the International Maritime Organisation’s Ballast Water Log Book is provided in Appendix E. This is to be modified to suit the vessel in question. The IMO is the United Nations' specialised agency responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships.

5 Guidelines for the Prevention of Biofouling on Commercial Vessels: Recommendations for Industry to Prevent the Introduction and Translocation of Marine Pests through Biofouling on Commercial Vessels. Australian Shipowners Association.


2290.002 Final 12

9.5 Stage: Monitoring

• The barge will be inspected at six monthly intervals by a suitably qualified diver in Port Melbourne to determine the extent of biofoul. The presence of excessive biofoul, unknown biofoul or damage to anti-fouling coatings will trigger an appropriate response, such as slipping the vessel for hull cleaning and/or repairs to anti-fouling surfaces.

• Every two years, a suitably qualified diver will conduct a marine pest survey in the Fraser Beach area. Management of newly detected marine pest species will follow the Australian Emergency Marine Pest Plan (EMP Plan)1.


2290.002 Final 13

10. STAGE: ALL STAGES

10.1 Management of Complaints

A Public Complaints Register will be maintained by DAJB and made available for inspection upon request. The Public Complaints Register will hold all Public Complaints Forms.

• Public complaints will follow the complete process outlined in the Public Complaints Form to ensure they are investigated, mitigation measures implemented and resolutions found, prior to the complaint being closed and filed.

• Public Complaints Forms will be filed in the Public Complaints Register, in hard copy and digitally. The complaint records will be kept for a minimum of 3 years.

10.2 Emergency Response and Contingency Planning

• In the event that an incident, including an emergency, accident or malfunction, that could result in environmental nuisance or serious or material harm, the incident must be notified to the Director of Environmental Management.

• Notification procedures are to follow those outlined in Schedule 2 (Environmental Conditions – notification of incidents) of EPN 7678/1.

10.3 Implementation of System Changes

• Any system/operational changes that may heighten the risk of translocating marine pest species will trigger a reassessment of the Marine Pest Management Plan and relevant standard operating procedures.

• Implementation of changes will be put in place as soon as possible after notification to, and approval by, the Director of Environmental Management.

• Training will be provided immediately to all relevant staff and contractors.


2290.002 Final 14

11. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

• Naracoopa – Mine Plan inc. Beach Mining Standard Operating Procedure.

• Naracoopa – DPEMP (Northern & Southern deposits) and Supplements.

• Naracoopa – Environmental Effects Report & Supplement.

12. REFERENCES Australian Ballast Water Management Strategy. 1995. Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service. Department of Primary Industry & Water. Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry. Domestic Ballast Water Management in Victorian State Waters: Protocol for Environmental Management. 2008. Environment Protection Authority – Victoria. Hayes et al.2005. National Priority Pests: Part 2, Ranking of Australian Marine Pests. CSIRO Marine Research. Hewitt, C.L. & Martin, R.B. 2001. Revised Protocols for Baseline Port Surveys for Introduced Marine Species: Survey Design Sampling Protocols & Specimen Handling. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests: Technical Report No.22. CSIRO Marine Research.


2290.002 Final Appendix A

APPENDIX A: KNOWN MARINE PESTS IN TASMANIAN COASTAL WATERS


2290.002 Final Appendix A

Known Marine Pests in Tasmanian coastal Waters

Source: State of Environment Report 2003. Resource Planning & Development Commission.

• Alexandrium catenella (toxic dinoflagellate) This toxic dinoflagellate can produce paralytic shellfish toxins that bioaccumulate in various zooplankton and shellfish. Blooms of the dinoflagellate can cause temporary closures of shellfish farms.

• Alexandrium tamarense(1)(toxic dinoflagellate) This toxic dinoflagellate can produce paralytic shellfish toxins that bioaccumulate in various zooplankton and shellfish. Blooms of the dinoflagellate can cause temporary closures of shellfish farms.

• Asterias amurensis*(Northern Pacific seastar) This 5 arm seastar is a prolific breeder and voracious predator. The pest feeds on native species and may compete with native predators. The seastar impacts heavily on commercial shellfish industries.

• Carcinus maenas* (European green crab) The crab is a voracious predator with a broad diet, impacting on native shellfish communities. Carcinus competes with native crabs and can impact on commercial shellfish farms.

• Corbula gibba (European clam) The European clam has a high growth rate and is tolerant of many environmental conditions. It can form extremely high population densities and therefore may compete with native species.

• Crassostrea gigas (2) (feral Pacific oyster) Pacific oysters settle in dense aggregations and may compete with other intertidal species. The shells are sharp and can impact on public amenity within infested areas. This species is grown commercially around much of the State.

• Gymnodinium catenatum (toxic dinoflagellate): This toxic dinoflagellate can produce paralytic shellfish toxins that bioaccumulate in various zooplankton and shellfish. Blooms of the dinoflagellate currently cause temporary closures of shellfish farms within the State.

• Musculista senhousia (bag mussel): Can dominate benthic communities and exclude native species. The mussel can form dense aggregations.

• Sabella spallanzanii* (European fan worm): The fan worm forms dense beds in Port Phillip Bay (Victoria) that can interfere with nutrient cycling. It may exclude other filter feeding species when in high numbers. Recruitment of some native species is inhibited by Sabella.

• Undaria pinnatifida* (Japanese kelp) Undaria is highly invasive. The weed grows quickly and can form dense stands. The impacts are not yet fully know but it probably out-competes native species of algae and may alter the food web. Overseas the weed has been a nuisance to aquaculture by fouling gear.


2290.002 Final Appendix B

APPENDIX B: BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIAN STATE WATERS - FLOWCHART

B A L L A S T W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T I N V I C T O R I A N S T A T E W A T E R S

Flowchart – Domestic ballast water management steps

Ship en route to Victorian Statewaters with intention of visitingor anchoring at a Victorian Port

Complete Victorian Ballast WaterReport Form (Report Form).

If ballast is permanent fresh water,

then ship is exempt from reporting

(no further action required)

YesNo

Does ship contain any

Australian-sourced domestic

ballast water on board?

Send Report Form to EPA. No further management

required by EPA. Ship must meet any AQIS requirements for international ballast water.

Low Risk High

Risk

No Yes

Send Ballast Water Log and Report Form to EPA. Ship may discharge domestic

ballast water provided EPA has given written approval

Commence completion of BallastWater Log and determine if the

ballast water is high-risk or low-riskusing the BWDSS. If the BWDSS is

not used, ballast water will beconsidered high-risk.

Do you intend to discharge this high-risk ballast water?

Send Ballast Water Log andReport Form to EPA. ShipMUST NOT discharge anyhigh-risk domestic ballast

water.

Ship must treat high-risk ballast water using accepted

treatment method. Send Ballast Water Log and Report

Form to EPA. Ship may discharge treated ballast water

in Victorian waters provided EPA has given written approval

Ship enters a Victorian Port and will be subject to verification inspections to ensure compliance with these (above) policy requirements.


2290.0022290.002 Final Appendix C

APPENDIX C: VICTORIAN BALLAST WATER REPORT FORM

V I C T O R I A N B A L L A S T W A T E R R E P O R T F O R M

Ship’s particulars for ship visiting a Victorian Port

1) Vessel name:______________________________ 7) ETA at a Victorian port: ___:___Hrs ___/___/__________

2) Voyage number:____________________________ 8) Berth at a Victorian port:_______________________________

3) IMO/Lloyd’s number:_______________________ 9) Net tonnage:______________________________________

4) Radio call sign:____________________________ 10) Number of cargo holds/tanks/decks:_________________

5) Last port of call:____________________________ 11) Vessel type:______________________________________

6) ETD last port of call:___:___Hrs___/___/_______ 12) Country of registry:________________________________

13. Do you have ballast water on board? YES NO (If NO, go to 22)

14. Do you have ballast water on board that was originally sourced within Australian territorial seas and domestic ports?

YES (If YES, EPA ballast water log must be completed) NO (If NO, go to 22 and submit)

15. Do you intend to discharge Australian-sourced domestic ballast water in a Victorian port?

YES (If Yes, complete EPA ballast water log with original uptake details) NO (If NO, go to 22)

16. Did you exchange ballast water at sea independent of the AQIS BWDSS report?

YES (If YES, complete EPA Ballast water log with all exchange details, sign at 22 and submit) NO

17. Have you used the AQIS BWDSS to perform a risk assessment on the domestic ballast water to be discharged

into Victorian waters? YES NO (If NO, your ballast water will be considered high-risk)

18. If YES, what is the Risk Assessment Number (RAN) assigned to your vessel by the AQIS BWDSS?

RAN: __ __ __ __ __ __ __

19. If your AQIS BWDSS result was HIGH will you have completed an approved ballast water treatment/exchange at

sea before arrival in Victoria? YES NO (go to Q 21.)

20. If YES indicate below what approved ballast water treatment/exchange method you used.

Sequential [empty/refill] Flow-through Dilution

21. If approved treatment was not conducted fully in any of the tanks/holds intended for discharge at a Victorian

Port, please state the reason and contact EPA as soon as possible:

22. Declared by (printed name):____________________Signature:__________________ Rank: _________________

Shipping agency name:____________________ Shipping agency phone no.: _________________________________ Shipping agency fax no.:___________________ Shipping agency email: _____________________________________ Date: ____/____/_________ Ship’s email: ______________________________________________ Fax form to the EPA Ballast Water Officer. Fax No: +613 9695 2520 or Email: [email protected]. For further assistance call +61 3 9695 2547.

NOTE: The discharge of high-risk domestic ballast water is prohibited in Victorian State waters.


2290.002 Final Appendix D

APPENDIX D: EPA BALLAST WATER LOG

PLEASE PHOTOCOPY AS REQUIRED

EPA BALLAST WATER LOG Ship's Name: ___________________________________ IMO/Lloyd’s No: _________________________ Year Built ______________

Master's Signature: ___________________________ Date: ________/________/________ PAGE _______ of _______

Ships completing this EPA BW log must also enter the ballast water information into the ship's deck and engineering logbooks. A ship's logbook must be made available for inspection at any Victorian port or any location within Victorian State Waters.

(A) Ballast Water

Tanks or Cargo Holds

(B) Ballast Water

Source

(C) Exchange

(D) Intended Victorian discharge port

for ballast water

Empty/Refill ONLY

Flow-through/Diltuion ONLY

Tank

Full Tank

Capacity (m ) 3

BW uptake PORT Uptake Date

Volume of ballast water

taken up (m )3

Exchange Location (Latitude/Longitude)

Start (S) End (E)

Exchange Date & Time

Start (S) End (E)

List Pumps Used

(Pump Number) &

current capacity m3/hr

Residual volume

when empty (m3)

Volume pumped

(m3)

Percentage Exchanged

BW discharge port in Victoria

Discharge Date

Volume for

discharge

(m ) 3

FPT 250 Port Botany 15/1/06 245 S: 35°05’S 151°02’E E: 36°10’S 150°10’E

S: 16/1/06 1045 E: 16/1/06 1145

Pump 1 500

10 NA NA Melbourne 17/1/06 240

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

S:

E:

BALLAST WATER TANK CODES: Forepeak = FPT Aftpeak = APT Double bottom = DB Bottom tank = BT Bottom side tank = BST Deep tank = DT Wing tank = WT Top side tank = TST Cargo hold = CH Heeling tank = HT Water ballast tank = WBT Port = P Starboard = S Centre = C Bilge = BGT Other = O (specify)

Instructions for Exchange & completion of this log: Exchange must be carried out to 95% volumetric exchange for empty/refill method and 300% for flow-through and dilution methods. Please fill in either the Empty/Refill column or the Flow-Through/Dilution column, depending on which method you used for each tank (only one method per tank is acceptable) Estimated current pump capacity must be listed for each pump used in exchange.

Send this form to EPA as soon as possible before entering Victorian State Waters. Fax: +613 9695 2520 or Email: [email protected]


2290.002 Final Appendix E

APPENDIX E: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION’S BALLAST WATER LOG



INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS’ BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS

Period From: ….. To: .....

Name of Ship .....................

IMO number .....................

Gross tonnage .....................

Flag .....................

Total ballast water capacity (in cubic metres) ..........

The ship is provided with a Ballast Water Management Plan

Diagram of ship indicating ballast tanks

1 Introduction In accordance with regulation B-2 of the Annex to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, a record is to be kept of each ballast water operation. This includes discharges at sea and to reception facilities. 2 Ballast Water and Ballast Water Management Ballast Water means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list, draught, stability, or stresses of a ship. Management of ballast water shall be in accordance with an approved Ballast Water Management Plan and taking into account the IMO Guidelines for ballast water management and the development of ballast water management plans. 3 Entries in the Ballast Water Record Book Entries in the Ballast Water Record Book shall be made on each of the following occasions: 3.1 When ballast water is taken on board:

1. Date, time and location port or facility of uptake (port or lat/long), depth if outside port

2. Estimated volume of uptake in cubic metres

3. Signature of the officer in charge of the operation

3.2 Whenever ballast water is circulated or treated for ballast water management purposes:

1. Date and time of operation

2. Estimated volume circulated or treated (in cubic metres)

3. Whether conducted in accordance with the Ballast Water Management Plan


3.3 When ballast water is discharged into the sea:

1. Date, time and location port or facility of discharge (port or lat/long)

2. Estimated volume discharged in cubic metres plus remaining volume in cubic metres

3. Whether approved Ballast Water Management Plan had been implemented prior to discharge




3.4 When Ballast Water is discharged to a reception facility:

1. Date, time, and location of uptake

2. Date, time, and location of discharge

3. Port or facility

4. Estimated volume discharged or taken up, in cubic metres


6. Signature of officer in charge of the operation

3.5 Accidental or other exceptional uptake or discharges of ballast water:

1. Date and time of occurrence

2. Port or position of the ship at time of occurrence

3. Estimated volume of ballast water discharged

4. Circumstances of uptake, discharge, escape or loss, the reason therefore and general remarks


6. Signature of officer in charge of the operation

3.6 Additional operational procedure and general remarks 4 Volume of Ballast Water The volume of ballast water onboard should be estimated in cubic metres. The Ballast Water Record Book contains many references to estimated volume of ballast water. It is recognised that the accuracy of estimating volumes of ballast is left to interpretation. RECORD OF BALLAST WATER OPERATIONS

SAMPLE BALLAST WATER RECORD BOOK PAGE Name of Ship: .................. Distinctive number or letters .............

Date Item (number)

Record of operations, exemptions and exceptions/signature of officers in charge

Signature of master .............

Documents

APPENDIX D – AQUENAL MARINE SURVEY · 4 EXISTING MARINE ENVIROMENT Aquenal conducted a baseline study of the marine environment in the vicinity of the proposed pumping facility