By email Response to section 92 request for further ... · Seawall Project, a similar condition with slightly varied wording could be applied to the Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to

20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue, Auckland 1010

Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

Phone 09 355 3553 Website www.AT.govt.nz

12 July 2018

Jarrod Dixon Intermediate Planner | North West Resource Consents Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142 By email [email protected]

Dear Jarrod

Response to section 92 request for further information for Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Princes Wharf Section | BUN60320273

Further to your letter dated 6 June 2018 requesting further information pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for resource consent application BUN60320273, please refer to the attached letter dated 11 July 2018 prepared by Auckland Transport’s planning consultant Tonkin + Taylor.

The letter and attachments can be accessed from the following link:

Quay Street Seawall Princes Wharf Section OneDrive Link

Should you have any questions about this section 92 response please contact me on 09 448 7341 or [email protected]

Yours faithfully

Manini Hallikeri Senior Planner, Property & Planning, Integrated Networks

Enc. Response to request for further information prepared by Tonkin + Taylor dated 11 July 2018

mailto:[email protected]

https://tonkintaylor-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/jcarvill_tonkintaylor_co_nz/EmzeJ9DdJvtMql4riGm7Wt4B3ou19a2XshgRs1QUF3WMcw


Tonkin & Taylor Ltd | 105 Carlton Gore Rd, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand PO Box 5271, Wellesley St, Auckland 1141 P +64-9-355 6000 F +64-9-307 0265 E [email protected]

Job No: 1004393 11 July 2018

Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142 Attention: Jarrod Dixon Dear Jarrod

Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Princes Wharf Section - BUN60320273, Response to Section 92 Request for Further Information

Further to your letter dated 6 June 2018 requesting further information pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), we write to provide a response to the matters outlined therein. The information requested is shown in italics followed by our response. Our numbering corresponds to the numbering in your letter. Our numbering corresponds to the numbering in your letter, and the asterisks (*) correspond to the items marked with an asterisk in your letter, identifying the information required prior to notification.

Heritage/Archaeology

1 Close to the WWI memorial beacon, there is a Rotary Club plaque located on the ground which lies within the extent of the potential excavation. Please confirm if this plaque will be recorded, protected, carefully stored and reinstated in the same location as it is currently.

Auckland Transport (AT) can confirm that the abovementioned plaque will be recorded, protected, carefully stored and reinstated in the same location. The suggested draft condition 44 (Appendix V of the AEE) could be amended as follows (new text underlined):

Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (Condition 44)

The BHCMP shall include:

a Pre-start meeting requirements with contractors;

b The method for site preparation, working practices and use of machinery; and;

c The method for avoiding damage or protecting heritage fabric from damage that may potentially occur during construction (see Condition 45);

d The identification of built heritage places that require a pre- and post-works visual condition survey (including the Auckland Harbour Board Fence), and the method for those surveys. The surveys are to be undertaken prior to works commencing and within two weeks of completion of the works.

e The methods for temporary removal, relocation and storage and reinstatement of the primary features of scheduled historic heritage places, and the Rotary Club plaque;

f The protocols for on-site compliance visits and communications paths;

g The methods for monitoring potential effects from vibration on nearby built heritage places in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan; and,

h The process for remediation of accidental damage to built heritage places arising from the works and any associated activities (see Condition 46).

2 Please address the potential for any underground railway tracks to be encountered during the works period and provide an appropriate removal methodology within the Archaeological Management Plan (AMP). *

Please refer to the attached letter prepared by Clough and Associates, dated 25 June 2018 (Appendix A) which responds to this item.

Note: It is understood that the 11 red pylons in the western section are in a bad state and require repair and restoration. The pre-work survey must record the existing condition of the red and blue fence in detail and whether the lights are in working order. Could consideration be given to restoring and fixing the lights in the 11 pylons?

Please refer to the attached letter prepared by Plan.Heritage, dated 27 June 2018 (Appendix B, page 2) which responds to this item.

Environmental Management/Earthworks

3 Please provide the T&T bench testing for ‘flocculation methodology’ as it was not attached to the draft Adaptive Environment Monitoring Management Response Plan (AEMMRP).

The bench testing for ‘flocculation methodology’ (Appendix B of AEMMRP) was submitted with the draft AEMMRP lodged to Council (hard copy and PDF). It is noted that Appendix B of the AEMMRP was inadvertently missing from the PDF of the Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf resource consent application and therefore it is assumed that this has been mistakenly requested for the Princes Wharf AEMMRP.

Geotechnical and Groundwater

4 As discussed at the recent meeting at Council offices, we require further information regarding the seawalls and whether they are fit for purpose. In particular, whether in the event of the design ULS earthquake, will soil flow between the piles as a consequence of lateral spreading and what are the predicted effects of any lateral spreading/ liquefaction on the land, structures and services to the landward side of the proposed wall. *

Note: We acknowledge that this information will likely be required at building consent stage as well, and the applicant is also arranging an independent peer review of this information, however, though the RMA is effects based, when balancing any effects of the proposal we need to have a level of comfort that the positive effects are achievable. The level of information we are after could be a brief memo outlining the way the wall is intended to work (as verbally described at our geotechnical meeting), with reference to the peer review, and potentially some proposed conditions about providing statements from the peer reviewer as a condition of consent.

Please refer to the attached letter prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Limited (T+T), dated 26 June 2018, (Appendix C) which responds to this item.

5 Please provide some commentary on the design retained height of the proposed wall in relation to the ULS seismic event.

Please refer to the attached letter prepared by T+T, dated 26 June 2018, (Appendix C) which responds to this item.

6 Please provide more detail concerning the weep holes proposed for the Ferry Basin section, i.e. plans and/or cross sections showing their size and location and expected flow paths.

No weep holes are proposed for the Princes Wharf section. This question is relevant only to the Ferry Basin section.

7 Please provide a draft Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP). This plan shall include (but not limited to): a plan showing the locations and types of monitoring devices (including building settlement marks on the neighbouring buildings and heritage structures, ground settlement marks, retaining wall deflection marks, and groundwater monitoring boreholes), and alert and alarm trigger levels and monitoring frequency for total and differential settlement of the ground surface and buildings, groundwater lowering and retaining wall lateral deflection. As a minimum the structures to be monitored should include: the two kiosk buildings by the Ferry Basin, the Ferry Building, the historic harbour board fence (if it is not removed for construction) and the existing sea wall. *

A draft Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP), prepared by T + T, dated June 2018 is provided in Appendix C to address the above item.

Suggested conditions of consent are also provided in relation to the GSMCP as follows. While this section 92 response is related specifically to the application for the Princes Wharf section of the Seawall Project, a similar condition with slightly varied wording could be applied to the Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf sections and this has been included below for information.

Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (Condition 57-58)

1 At least 10 working days prior to the commencement of construction of the Project, the consent holder shall update the draft Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP) included with the section 92 response that forms part of the application documents and submit this to Council for certification in accordance with Conditions 10-16. The purpose of the GSMCP is to set out the monitoring requirements in relation to ground settlement, retaining wall deflection, groundwater response and the response of the structures and to set out contingency measures.

2 The GSMCP shall include:

a A plan showing the locations and types of monitoring devices, including:

i Ground settlement marks;

ii Building settlement marks on the [western kiosk (if it is to remain in situ during construction) (Princes Wharf)], OR [western and eastern kiosks (if they are to remain in situ during construction), and the Ferry Building (Ferry Basin)] OR [Ferry Building (Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf)];

iii A groundwater monitoring borehole; and

iv Retaining wall deflection marks

based on the indicative positions relevant to the [Princes Wharf] OR [Ferry Basin] OR [Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf] section as shown on the plan entitled Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan, labelled SK-GSMCP-001-Rev1 (Appendix A);

b Requirements for visual monitoring of the Auckland Harbour Fence, where it remains in situ during construction;

c Trigger levels and monitoring frequency for total and differential settlement of the ground surface and buildings, groundwater post construction, retaining wall lateral deflection and visual monitoring;

d Requirements for reporting of monitoring records;

e Details of the contingency measures to be implemented if triggers are exceeded.

Contamination

8 Please amend Table 8.1 in Section 8.1 of the submitted Site Management Plan (SMP) to remove the incorrect classification of asphalt and concrete as ‘Cleanfill’ material.

Note: That is in contrary to the current definition of ‘Cleanfill material’ set out in the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part).and may inadvertently present a misleading disposal procedure for the contractors undertaking the excavation/piling works.

Please refer to the updated SMP, dated June 2018 in Appendix D which addresses the above request by updating Table 8.1 (page 19) to remove the incorrect classification of asphalt and concrete as ‘Cleanfill’ material.

Arboricultural

9 What steps have been taken to secure replacement trees of an adequate size and quality should any trees need to be removed and replaced. *

Auckland Transport has commenced the process of identifying and securing replacement trees, should they be required. Please refer to the attached letter prepared by ArborLab, dated 3 July 2018 (Appendix E) which responds to this item.

Traffic

Please refer to the attached letters from Flow NZ, dated 29 June 2018 and 9 July 2018 in Appendix F, which responds to items 10 – 24. It is noted that items 19 and 21 also apply to all three section 92 further information requests for the seawall upgrade.

Landscape/Visual

25 Please provide drawings (within the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects) which illustrate the extent of the work area and alignment of the proposed sea walls. Alternatively, please update this assessment to clearly refer to the drawings submitted with the application. *

Note: The civil engineering drawings are slightly difficult to decipher in terms of extent of the likely area of public footpath that will be closed during the construction period. Please ensure the information/plans clearly illustrate the location of the works in relation to the existing trees.

Please refer to Appendix G for the updated Assessment of Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects, prepared by Boffa Miskell, dated 25 June 2018. Paragraph 4.4 of the methodology section has been amended to reference the relevant drawings submitted with the resource consent application.

26 Please provide photographs of the affected trees as well as photographs of the trees viewed as a collective (forming a strong vegetated edge to Quay Street) from viewpoints that are representative of the various viewing audiences which have been considered within the assessments. *

Photographs of the affected trees, in addition to contextual views from various public viewing locations have been prepared by Boffa Miskell, dated 6 June 2018 and are provided in Appendix G.

27 Please provide an assessment of the adverse visual effects from the temporary 2.5m construction hoardings. * Advice note: Artwork, interpretative material and/or viewing windows (similar to the City Rail Link) should be considered as mitigation measures for the construction hoardings.

An assessment of the adverse effects for construction hoarding has now been provided in the assessment. Paragraph 8.3 of the updated Assessment of Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects provides this commentary and recommends mitigation measures to be applied to the hoardings which could form part of the consent conditions. Please refer to Appendix G for the updated Assessment of Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects.

Consultation

A response to items 28 to 31 related to consultation and infrastructure prepared by T+T, dated 28 June 2018 is provided in Appendix H.

Updated draft conditions

As amendments and additional draft conditions are suggested in our response to the section 92 further information request (relating to built heritage and the GSMCP), an updated draft condition list is provided in Appendix I. This replaces Appendix V of the AEE.

Applicability

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Auckland Transport, with respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Environmental and Engineering Consultants

Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

.......................................................... ...........................….......…...............

Alexandra Scouller Richard Reinen-Hamill Planner Project Director

..........................................................

Jennifer Carvill Technical Director – Planning

11-Jul-18 \\ttgroup.local\files\aklprojects\1004393\issueddocuments\consenting\2018 07 11 s92 reponse princess wharf\20180709 s92 response princes wharf.docx

pp

Appendix A : Archaeology

Quay St Seawall Upgrade S92 - Archaeology Page 1

25 June 2018

Auckland Council

Private Bag 92300

Auckland 1142

Attention: Jarrod Dixon

Dear Jarrod,

Re: Quay St Seawall Upgrade – s92 Request for Further Information

As requested I am responding to the following s92 question relating to Archaeology,

which applies to all three sections of the proposed seawall upgrade (Princes Wharf,

Ferry Basin, Queens to Marsden).

Please address the potential for any underground railway tracks to be

encountered during the works period and provide an appropriate removal

methodology within the Archaeological Management Plan (AMP).

As noted in the archaeological assessment reports for the three sections, the 20th

century rail lines were located centrally within Quay Street, with branches turning into

the wharves. Rail lines were exposed in Quay Street just under the road surface to the

south of the Ferry Building during trenching works by Vector in 2010. The proposed

works are unlikely to expose rail lines except perhaps where works are carried out at

the entrances to the wharves, or where trenching is required for utilities relocation.

Preparation of an Archaeological Heritage Construction Management Plan is proposed

as a condition of consent. This could include an appropriate removal methodology

along the following lines:

Where possible any rail lines encountered would be recorded and left in situ

(this may be possible within trenches for utilities relocation, for example).

Where it is not possible to retain rail lines encountered during trenching for

utilities relocation or the seawall upgrade work, the rail lines will be recorded

by an archaeologist: photographically, with measured drawings (cross sections

and plans), GPS locations and written notes.

Sections to be removed will then be cut flush with the trench edges and

uplifted.

Quay St Seawall Upgrade S92 - Archaeology Page 2

Removed trench sections will be retained for opportunities for interpretation.

Please contact me if you need further information.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Macready

Co-Director

Appendix B : Built Heritage

Plan.HeritageTel: +64 (0) 94458953 Email: [email protected]: +64 (0) 2102973641 Web: www.planheritage.co.nzAB: +64 (0) 2102973633 48 Lake Road Narrow Neck Auckland 0624

P a g e 1 | 9

27 June 2018

To:

Jennifer Carvill (T&T)

Manini Hallikeri (AT)

By Email

RE: Seawall Upgrade Project – Section 92 Request for Further Information

Dear Jennifer and Manini,

I have reviewed the Requests for information for the following project consents:

1. Princes Wharf (BUN60320273 (LUC60320276, WAT60320275))2. Ferry Basin (BUN60320266 (DIS60320271, LUC60320270, CST60320269)3. Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf (BUN60320273 (DIS60320291, LUC60320279,

WAT60320290))

I address in turn each request (highlighted in grey) as set out in the RFI’s below. Kind regards

John Brown

John BrownPlan.Heritage [email protected]



http://www.planheritage.co.nz/


P a g e 2 | 9

Princes Wharf BUN60320273 (LUC60320276, WAT60320275)

Heritage/Archaeology

1. Close to the WWI memorial beacon, there is a Rotary Club plaque located on theground which lies within the extent of the potential excavation. Please confirm if thisplaque will be recorded, protected, carefully stored and reinstated in the samelocation as it is currently.

Provisions for the recording, safe storage and reinstatement of the Rotary Club plaque canbe included within the Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP).

2. Please address the potential for any underground railway tracks to be encounteredduring the works period and provide an appropriate removal methodology withinthe Archaeological Management Plan (AMP). *

This request is being addressed by the archaeological consultant.

Note:

It is understood that the 11 red pylons in the western section are in a bad state and require repairand restoration. The pre-work survey must record the existing condition of the red and blue fencein detail and whether the lights are in working order. Could consideration be given to restoringand fixing the lights in the 11 pylons?

The Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP) provides for the condition survey ofthe Auckland Harbour Board Fence (AHB Fence). Please refer to the response to the Ferry BasinRFI question 4 response for more detail on this matter. The purpose of this condition survey is toprovide a baseline of condition prior to the construction of the seawall, so that any accidentaldamage occurring during construction above and beyond the current condition can be accuratelylogged and remediated.

The 11 red fence pylons within the Princes Wharf section lie outside the area of works and willbe retained in situ, with temporary protection erected as required. It is therefore outside thescope of this consent to undertake what is considered to be normal maintenance of the pylons.Maintenance work of this nature could occur at any time as a permitted activity. Restoration ofthe pylons may however be included for consideration in subsequent works associated with theQuay Street West Street Upgrade Project. Once completed, the condition survey could be madeavailable to inform any future maintenance work. This is an ‘added value’ of the work.




P a g e 3 | 9

Ferry Basin

Heritage and Archaeology

1. Please confirm if the heritage features/structures will be removed for the entireworks period (15-16 months). *

It is anticipated that heritage features/structures will be temporarily relocated for theduration of the works period. This is because the contractor will require a specific area toensure safe management and operation of piling rigs and other heavy plant. From a historicheritage perspective, the temporary relocation of the Ferry Shelters and Auckland HarbourBoard Fence (AHB Fence) sections will be managed through detailed revisions of the DraftBuilt Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP). It is not possible at this stage toconfirm this duration, because detailed construction logistics have not been confirmed withan appointed contractor. The assumption that temporary relocation will be for the plannedduration of the works is therefore that a conservative approach to this timeframe should beadopted. The benefit of relocation for the duration of works is that potential accidentaldamage to historic heritage features arising from construction activities will be avoided.

2. Is it possible to ‘stage’ the removal of the Auckland Harbour Board (AHB) fence (bluefence) to avoid the entire fence being removed at any one time? *

This will need to be determined through detailed design with the appointed contractor. Atthis stage the conservative assumption is that all sections within the construction zone1 ()will need to be removed at the same time to provide for safe working space within thisarea. This being the case, it would be potentially safer and introduce less risk of accidentaldamage to the fence sections to reinstate all elements following completion of the mainworks. For the landward option some sections of the AHB Fence will not require removal.These sections are to the north of the Eastern Ferry shelter and to the North of the WesternFerry Shelter adjacent to the sea stairs and Princes Wharf.

3. Please provide storage and location details for the relocated heritage features. Asecure location at one of the nearby wharves is preferred.

This is currently unconfirmed and a detailed storage methodology including storage locationdetails will be provided for in the BHCMP. Auckland Council’s preference for a secure location

1 marked green on the application plans contained in the Construction Methodology for Resource Consent reportprepared by Alta, which is attached to the application as Appendix D




P a g e 4 | 9

at one of the nearby wharves is noted and a wharf storage option will be investigated byAuckland Transport in discussion with relevant landholders (Ports Of Auckland Limited,Panuku) during the procurement process. Smaller elements such as fence rails may be ableto be stored securely onsite or at a nearby wharf. It may, however, be preferable to storeall removable elements in a single location, primarily for security, but also for compliancemonitoring of features including during reinstatement. An alternative single location storageoption for larger features such as the Ferry Shelters will be at a secure house mover’s yard.At such locations any relocated buildings / structures can be subject to security monitoring/ CCTV, and will benefit from ease of maintenance and more efficient control of thereinstatement process.

4. Will the western kiosk be relocated in one piece? *

A detailed methodology for temporary relocation of the east and west Ferry Shelters will bedeveloped as a revision to the draft BHCMP. Both structures are of a sufficiently small scalethat they could be relocated in one piece. This largely depends on the nature of thefoundation slabs for the structures. The following process is anticipated:

· Lifting of surrounding pavement to investigate slab structure/foundations

· Engineering investigation of the structures to determine requirements forstrengthening during temporary relocation

· Request For Information (RFI) to heavy haulage companies for removal and storagemethodology (either directly or via appointed main contractor)

· Commissioning of heavy haulage contractor (either directly or via appointed maincontractor)

· Update and reissue of BHCMP

· Certification of removal methodology by Auckland Council Consents Teams

5. Please provide a recording strategy for the proposed relocated features(numbering/coding).

This will be detailed in the BHCMP as part of the condition survey. Essentially it is anticipatedthat each separate element of the fence (e.g. pylon, post panel) will be separatelyphotographed and the condition recorded on a site inventory sheet. Each element will also




P a g e 5 | 9

be recorded and numbered on plan. The individual elements will be sequentially numberedfrom West to East and identified with the following information:

[AUPOP Schedule id] [Element No] [orientation] [Adjacent to (E)] [Adjacent to (W)]

It is proposed that laminated plastic tags (minimum x2 number) marked with permanentpen are attached to each element with plastic zip ties. These will be attached to north-facing and east-facing elements for consistency and to assist re-orientation.

6. Please address the potential for any underground railway tracks to be encounteredduring the works period and provide an appropriate removal methodology withinthe Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) should any be discovered. *


Note:

There are concerns around the relocation of the western kiosk which is a brick building andrequires a robust relocation and storage strategy to prevent any damage to the buildingfabric.

This will be addressed under the BHCMP as set out above (question 4)




P a g e 6 | 9

Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf BUN60320273 (DIS60320291, LUC60320279,WAT60320290)

Heritage and Archaeology

1. Please confirm if the relocated heritage structures are going to be stored away forthe duration of the proposed works (10-11 months)? *

The construction phasing drawings provided by Alta2 show that the Auckland Harbour BoardFence (AHB Fence) may form the northern boundary of the construction zone for themajority of the site. The application to remove temporarily sections of the fence is thereforea precautionary approach as these elements may not need to be removed at all. This willbe further determined on appointment of a contractor and at detailed construction designstage, and will be captured through revision of the Built Heritage Construction ManagementPlan (BHCMP).

If temporary removal is required, it is not possible at this stage to confirm this duration,because detailed construction logistics have not been confirmed with an appointedcontractor. The assumption is therefore that a conservative approach to this timeframeshould be adopted, and that the heritage features are to be temporarily relocated for theduration. The benefit of relocation for the duration of works is that potential accidentaldamage to historic heritage features arising from construction activities will be avoided.From a historic heritage perspective, the temporary relocation of AHB Fence sections willbe managed through detailed revisions of the BHCMP which will be certified by AucklandCouncil. The Construction Methodology for Resource Consent report prepared by Altaincludes indicative staging for the works. In the event that some form of staging, such asthat indicated in the Alta report, is practicable, it may be possible to reinstate some sectionsof the fence prior to the completion of all works, for example between Britomart Place andGore Street.

2. Is it possible to stage the relocation and reinstatement in such a way that only asmall portion (50m or 1/5) of the red fence is removed at a time? *

It is not possible at this stage to confirm this approach, because detailed constructionlogistics have not been confirmed with an appointed contractor. However, the indicative

2 plans contained in the Construction Methodology for Resource Consent report prepared by Alta, which isattached to the application as Appendix D




P a g e 7 | 9

staged work plans prepared by Alta demonstrate one scenario where it may be possible forconstruction to take place in a staged manner which may enable some staging of therelocation and reinstatement of the AHB Fence. There will be at the very least a stagingelement for the c.30m section of the AHB Fence immediately adjacent to the Ferry Buildingand Queens Wharf, to provide for continued access to the wharf itself. Notwithstandingthis, there are a number of factors which may influence the practicality of staged removaland reinstatement, for example security of the site from a safety perspective, andconstruction methodology for the capping beam installation. It is noted that the 50m worksections (referred to in Section 3.1 of the Construction Methodology for Resource Consentreport prepared by Alta) related only to the services relocation, and not the main works(piling and capping beam).

The purpose of the BHCMP is to clearly detail an agreed methodology to be certified byAuckland Council during detailed construction design stage. Suggested conditions wereincluded as Appendix V to the application, including in relation to the BHCMP. It isconsidered that amendment to suggested Condition 43 could make specific reference tostaging and some wording is proposed below.

42 At least 10 working days prior to the commencement of the Project, the Consent Holdershall update the draft Built Heritage Construction Management Plan (BHCMP) includedwith the consent application documents and submit this to Council for certification inaccordance with Conditions 10 to 16. The purpose of the detailed BHCMP is to managethe construction process to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on built heritage in thevicinity of the Project.

43 The BHCMP shall include:a Pre-start meeting requirements with contractors;b The method for site preparation, working practices and use of machinery; and;c The method for avoiding damage or protecting heritage fabric from damage that

may potentially occur during construction (see Condition 45);d The identification of built heritage places that require a pre- and post-works visual

condition survey (including the Auckland Harbour Board Fence), and the method forthose surveys. The surveys are to be undertaken prior to works commencing andwithin two weeks of completion of the works.

e Identification of the portions of the Auckland Harbour Board Fence that will betemporarily relocated, including discussion of reasons for temporary relocationtaking into account the follow matters which are presented in order of preference:i Fence panels and pylons to remain in situ during construction where

practicable.ii Fence pylons to remain in situ during construction where practicable.




P a g e 8 | 9

iii Where fence panels and / or pylons need to be temporarily relocated, thelength of fence temporarily relocated at any one time should be minimised tono more than one third of the length of the Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharfsection works, where practicable.

iv Where all fence panels and pylons adjacent to the works need to betemporarily relocated for the duration of the works, alternatives that havebeen investigated to avoid this scenario.

f The methods for temporary removal, relocation and storage of the primary featuresof scheduled historic heritage places (including specific detail regarding staging fortemporary removal and reinstatement of the Auckland Harbour Board Fence, wherethe Fence cannot practically remain in situ during construction and this option isrequired);

g The protocols for on-site compliance visits and communications paths;h The methods for monitoring potential effects from vibration on nearby built heritage

places in accordance with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan;and,

i The process for remediation of accidental damage to built heritage places arisingfrom the works and any associated activities (see Condition 46)

3. Please provide storage and location details for the proposed relocated features.

At this stage it is anticipated that temporarily removed sections may be securely storedclose to the line of AHB fence to the east of the construction zone. This will need to beconfirmed through discussion with POAL and the applicant. As discussed above for the FerryBasin, It may however be more expedient to store all removable elements in a singlelocation, for security, ease of maintenance and monitoring. If a single storage location isselected then a secure yard where heritage features can be continuously monitored maybe the preferable option.

4. Please provide a recording strategy for the proposed relocated features(numbering/coding).

This will be detailed in the BHCMP as part of the condition survey. Essentially it is anticipatedthat each separate element of the fence (e.g. pylon, post panel) will be separatelyphotographed and the condition recorded on a site inventory sheet. Each element will alsobe recorded and numbered on plan. The individual elements will be sequentially numberedfrom West to East and identified with the following information:




P a g e 9 | 9

[AUPOP Schedule id] [Element No] [orientation] [Adjacent to (E)] [Adjacent to (W)]

It is proposed that laminated plastic tags (minimum x2 number) marked with permanentpen are attached to each element with plastic zip ties. These will be attached to north-facing and east-facing elements for consistency and to assist re-orientation.

5. Please address the potential for any underground railway tracks to be encounteredduring the works period and provide an appropriate removal methodology withinthe Archaeological Management Plan (AMP). *


Note:

The complete removal of the ‘red fence and pylons’ is undesirable and all viable optionsregarding the ‘staged’ removal of the features should be explored. Complete removal of thefence should be avoided.

The complete removal of the Red Fence will not occur. There is a continuous section east of theproposed Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf construction works from opposite the junction withBritomart Place (approximately 50m), which is not required to be removed by the proposal (referto staged Construction plans prepared by Alta). Similarly, the pylons west of the Ferry Basin areunaffected by the proposed Princes Wharf construction wharf.



Appendix C : Geotechnical and Groundwater

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd | 105 Carlton Gore Rd, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand PO Box 5271, Wellesley St, Auckland 1141 P +64-9-355 6000 F +64-9-307 0265 E [email protected]

Job No: 1004393.0000 26 June 2018

Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142 Attention: Jarrod Dixon Dear Jarrod,

Quay Street seawall upgrade

Response to section 92 request - Geotechnical further information

Introduction

Auckland Transport (AT) has lodged three resource consent applications for the Quay Street seawallupgrade project (Seawall Project), the Auckland Council references for which are:

Princes Wharf BUN60320273

Ferry Basin BUN60320266

Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf BUN60320277.

Further information requests were received by email on 23 May 2018 and formal section 92 (s92)letters dated 6 June 2018 have also been received. There are four questions relating to geotechnicaland groundwater matters. This memorandum addresses the first two items. The other two matterswill be addressed via separate correspondence. The questions are reproduced in italics below as setout in the s92 letters, reference numbers are included to identify the s92 request item for eachapplication.

Seawall design

Information requested

Princes Wharf request (4), Ferry Basin request (14), Queens to Marsden request (7)

As discussed at the recent meeting at Council offices, we require further information regardingthe seawalls and whether they are fit for purpose. In particular, whether in the event of thedesign ULS earthquake, will soil flow between the piles as a consequence of lateral spreadingand what are the predicted effects of any lateral spreading/ liquefaction on the land,structures and services to the landward side of the proposed wall. *

Note:

We acknowledge that this information will likely be required at building consent stage as well,and the applicant is also arranging an independent peer review of this information, however,

2

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Quay Street seawall upgrade Response to section 92 request - Geotechnical further information Auckland Council

26 June 2018 Job No: 1004393.0000

though the RMA is effects based, when balancing any effects of the proposal we need to have a level of comfort that the positive effects are achievable.

The level of information we are after could be a brief memo outlining the way the wall is intended to work (as verbally described at our geotechnical meeting), with reference to the peer review, and potentially some proposed conditions about providing statements from the peer reviewer as a condition of consent.

As part of the resource consent applications, a geotechnical and groundwater effects report was submitted for each of the three sections of the Seawall Project (T+T reference 1004393 and dated 2 May 2018). We understand that the further information is requested regarding the overall design objectives for the three sections of the seawall as well as the process to achieve those objectives.

As per your email of 23 May 2018, our conference call of 25 May 2018, and email correspondence on 31 May 2018, we understand that the further information requested can be summarised as:

Clarifying the design objectives to confirm the purpose of the proposed walls

Explaining the design process to outline how the design objectives will be achieved to ensure the design is fit for purpose

Explanation of the design process also describes how the proposed walls will be designed to limit soil movement between piles

Discussing the positive operational effects of the proposed walls in the long term to outline the effects of any future lateral spreading/liquefaction on the land, structures and services on the landward side of the proposed wall.

Quay Street seawall design objectives

The design objective of the proposed seawall, from a geotechnical perspective, is to protect Quay Street and the services within it from seismic loading by mitigating the effects of seismic loading, liquefaction/cyclic softening and lateral spreading. The design will be undertaken to limit deformations of Quay Street and the services within it to design extents stipulated in the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) Bridge Manual.

Design process

The design process for the proposed palisade and post and panel walls aims to ensure the design objectives are achieved and will be in accordance with the NZTA Bridge Manual. The design process will involve assessment of the extent of potential liquefaction/cyclic softening in a design level earthquake, slope stability analysis including the potential effects of lateral spreading, design of wall elements to resist potential slope instability, and analysis of a range of seismic design cases.

In accordance with Section 6.1.2 and Table 6.1 of the Bridge Manual, the proposed walls are considered to be flexible walls supporting a road with annual average daily traffic count greater than 2,500 vehicles and are therefore will be designed for a maximum total settlement of 50 mm and a maximum differential settlement of 1/100 for serviceability limit state (SLS) load combinations and a maximum total horizontal displacement of 150 mm as well as the performance requirements in Table 6.2 of the Bridge Manual for ultimate limit state (ULS) load combinations.

The deformation design requirements limit the deformation of the proposed wall in the design seismic event and will be achieved following industry standard design procedures, ensuring the proposed walls are fit for purpose.

The piles of the proposed walls will be designed to achieve the deformation limits as well as to withstand the imposed structural actions and will be spaced so the soil can arch between the piles in both static and seismic cases and will limit soil movement between the piles. Detailed finite element

3


26 June 2018 Job No: 1004393.0000

modelling will be undertaken to confirm assumed deformation mechanisms and design checks will be made to confirm that soil will be able to arch between the proposed wall piles at the specified spacing.

Peer review has been commissioned by AT, with Engineering Geology Ltd. undertaking the geotechnical peer review. Peer review is intended to ensure the design is sufficient and meets code requirements and industry standards.

T+T will issue a Producer Statement 1 (PS1) – Design for the design of the proposed walls and the peer reviewers will issue a Producer Statement 2 (PS2) – Design Review as part of the building consent process.

Positive operational effects

The positive operational effects of the proposed wall are outlined in the geotechnical and groundwater effects reports prepared for each of the three sections of the Seawall Project. In summary, the proposed wall improves the stability and resilience of Quay Street, particularly mitigating any potential risks of ground surface subsidence and instability in a seismic event. It is expected that deformation extents in a seismic event will decrease with distance landward of the proposed wall.

The importance of protecting Quay Street is discussed in the Project Context and Options Assessment report (T+T reference 1004393.v2 dated May 2018). The Quay Street Seawall retains reclamation fills that support the heavily trafficked Quay Street, multiple service utilities, protected heritage structures, and many multi-storey commercial buildings. Surveys undertaken in March 2017 show approximately 7,300 pedestrians enter and exit the main ferry terminal on Quay Street per day and approximately 44,700 passengers use the Britomart rail station per day. The five day average daily traffic count on Quay Street is about 24,000. High voltage power supply, Chorus communication and water mains supply are included in the services within Quay Street and disruption of these services could severely impact businesses and public infrastructure on Quay Street as well as potentially the wider downtown Auckland area.

The proposed wall will be designed to limit lateral deformations during a seismic event, reducing damage to the assets supported by the wall. Improvement of the seismic stability of Quay Street also provides a consequential improvement to the resilience, particularly seismic resilience, of surrounding buildings and infrastructure on Quay Street. By limiting displacement due to lateral spreading, the buildings and infrastructure on Quay Street, including those on the southern side, will also have limited displacements in a seismic event and this increases the likelihood that this infrastructure will be operable following a design seismic event.

It is also noted that the Built Heritage Impact Assessment Reports (prepared by Plan.Heritage Ltd. and dated April 2018) identified that the proposed walls provide significant long-term beneficial effects through improved resilience of the seawall should a seismic event occur. These reports highlighted the Christchurch experience, where maintained access to built heritage following a seismic event allowed buildings to be stabilised and was a significant factor affecting the retention and survival of built heritage.

The peer review process being undertaken will ensure that the final design achieves the project design objectives and meets industry standards. Importantly, the peer review process and PS2 documentation as part of the building consent process will provide AT and the Council with the assurance that the project will achieve the positive benefits discussed and will be fit for purpose.

4


26 June 2018 Job No: 1004393.0000

Design retained height

Princes Wharf request (5), Ferry Basin request (15), Queens to Marsden request (8)

Please provide some commentary on the design retained height of the proposed wall in relation to the ULS seismic event.

As discussed in the design process section above, the proposed walls will be designed in accordance with the NZTA Bridge Manual and meet the performance requirements set out in Section 6.1.2 of that document. With regard to the designed retained height following a ULS seismic event, the performance requirements in Table 6.2 of the Bridge Manual include post-seismic cases, where evacuation of material seaward of the proposed wall and short term retaining requirements will be considered as part of the design process. The proposed walls will be designed to achieve the specified factors of safety for the post seismic design cases and the extent of evacuation will be quantified in detailed design based on seismic slope stability analysis and finite element modelling to allow an appropriate design retained height to be assumed.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Environmental and Engineering Consultants

Prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

.......................................................... ...........................….......…...............

Luke Storie Richard Reinen-Hamill Geotechnical Engineer Project Director 26-Jun-18 \\ttgroup.local\corporate\auckland\projects\1004393\issueddocuments\consenting\2018 06 26 geotechnical effects further information letter\20180626 section92 geotechnical further information letter_lzzs.docx

REPORT

Quay Street Seawall UpgradeDraft Ground Settlement Monitoringand Contingency Plan

Prepared forAuckland TransportPrepared byTonkin & Taylor LtdDateJune 2018Job Number1004393.000.v1.0

Document Control

Title: Quay Street Seawall Upgrade

Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: Authorised by:

29/06/18 1 Draft for comment M. Child D. Yang and L. Storie R. Reinen-Hamill

Distribution:

Auckland Transport 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor LtdQuay Street Seawall Upgrade - Draft Ground Settlement Monitoring and Contingency PlanAuckland Transport

June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

Table of contents

1 Introduction 12 Project description 1

2.1 General 13 Definitions 14 Monitoring 3

4.1 General 34.2 Auckland Harbour Board Fence 3

4.2.1 General 34.2.2 Monitoring intervals 34.2.3 Trigger levels 3

4.3 Existing seawall deformation monitoring 34.3.1 General 34.3.2 Monitoring frequency 44.3.3 Monitoring trigger levels 4

4.4 Groundwater monitoring 44.4.1 General 44.4.2 Monitoring frequency 44.4.3 Trigger levels 5

4.5 Ground settlement and building deformation monitoring 54.5.1 General 54.5.2 Settlement monitoring frequency 54.5.3 Settlement trigger levels 5

4.6 Summary of Monitoring Frequency Requirements 75 Reporting of monitoring records 8

5.1 Pre-construction baseline readings 85.2 Reporting intervals and requirements 8

6 Alert and alarm trigger level response procedures 86.1 Response procedure for alert trigger level exceedances 86.2 Response procedure for alarm trigger level exceedances 9

7 Contingency options 97.1 General 97.2 Auckland Harbour Board Fence deformation contingency measures 97.3 Existing seawall deformation contingency measures 97.4 Groundwater monitoring 107.5 Ground and building deformation contingency measures 10

8 Applicability 10

Appendix A : Figures

1


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

1 IntroductionTonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) has been engaged by Auckland Transport (AT) to prepare a draft GroundSettlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP) to support the resource consent applicationsfor the upgrade of the existing Quay Street seawall in downtown Auckland.

Auckland Transport (AT) has lodged separate resource consent applications for each of the threesections of the existing seawall which are proposed to be upgraded:

· Princes Wharf (Council reference BUN60320273)· Ferry Basin (Council reference BUN60320266)· Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf (Council reference BUN60320273).

This GSMCP sets out the monitoring and contingency requirements for these three sections of theseawall.

Although the Ferry Building section of the existing seawall is not covered in the resource consentapplications currently lodged with Auckland Council, monitoring in the vicinity of the Ferry Buildingsection is included due to the proximity of the works proposed on either side.

2 Project description

2.1 General

The Quay Street seawall extends from the western side of Lower Hobson Street to the western sideof Marsden Wharf at the Downtown Ferry Terminal in Central Auckland. The seawall forms theharbour edge of an historic reclamation, which supports Quay Street, as well as the servicescontained within the road corridor.

It has been established that the existing seawall does not meet current design standards for seismicperformance, and that there are sections that are in need of general repair due to scour damage tothe surface of the seawall. There is also the opportunity to create resilience to future climate andchanging use patterns, particularly the impacts of ship wash as ferry and cruise ship operationsintensify their activity.

3 Definitions

Council Auckland Council

Commencement ofConstruction

Commencement of any bulk excavation on the site including installationof sheet pile walls if adopted for shoring of the trench for constructionof the capping beam.

Commencement ofExcavation

Means commencement of Bulk Excavations including piling.

Completion ofExcavation

When the capping beam or precast panel and backfill is in place tosupport the ground and any temporary supports/retention have beenremoved and the ground surface has been reinstated for public use.

Completion ofConstruction

When the code of compliance certificate is issued by AC.

2


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

Services Includes for example fibre optic cables, sanitary drainage, gas and watermains, power and telephone, road infrastructure assets such asfootpaths, kerbs, catch-pits, pavements and street furniture.

Damage Includes aesthetic, serviceability, stability, but does not includenegligible damage.

Table 1: Building damage classification

CategoryofDamage

NormalDegree ofSeverity

Description of Typical Damage (Building Damage Classificationafter Burland (1995)1, and Mair et al. (1996)2)

GeneralCategory(afterBurland(1995))

0 Negligible Hairline cracks.

AestheticDamage

1 VerySlight

Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhapsisolated slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior visible uponclose inspection. Typical crack widths up to 1 mm.

2 Slight

Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slightfractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repaintingmay be required for weather-tightness. Doors and windows maystick slightly. Typical crack widths up to 5 mm.

3 Moderate

Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent crackscan be masked by suitable linings. Brick pointing and possiblereplacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may berequired. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services may beinterrupted. Weather tightness often impaired. Typical crackwidths are 5 to 15 mm or several greater than 3 mm. Serviceability

Damage

4 Severe

Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of wallsespecially over door and windows required. Window and doorframes distorted. Floor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulgenoticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams. Utility servicesdisrupted. Typical crack widths are 15 to 25 mm but also dependon the number of cracks.

5 VerySevere

Major repair required involving partial or completereconstruction. Beams lose bearing walls lean badly and requiredshoring. Windows broken by distortion. Danger of instability.Typical crack widths are greater than 25 mm but depend on thenumber of cracks.

StabilityDamage

Note: ‘Description of Typical Damage’ applies to Masonry buildings only. The ‘General Category’ applies to all buildings.

1 Burland, J. B. (1995). “Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunneling and excavation.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Earthquake GeotechnicalEngineering, IS, Tokyo, Japan 1995.2 Mair, R. J., Taylor, R. N. and Burland, J. B. (1996). “Prediction of ground movements and assessment of rsk of building damage due to bored tunnelling”.Proc. Int. Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London.

3


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

4 Monitoring

4.1 General

Monitoring of the excavation works and surroundings shall be undertaken to monitor that theground settlement, retaining wall deflection, groundwater response, and the response of thestructures are within design tolerances.

The monitoring requirements including types of instruments, location of monitoring points,frequency of monitoring, action trigger levels, response procedures and reporting requirements aredetailed in the following sections.

4.2 Auckland Harbour Board Fence

4.2.1 General

Visual monitoring of the heritage Auckland Harbour Board Fence (AHB Fence) shall be undertaken toconfirm the existing condition of the fence and standalone fence pylons, located on Princes Wharf,prior to construction as well as post construction.

A record of the monitoring results, including photographs, should be maintained on site andforwarded to the client and T+T.

4.2.2 Monitoring intervals

Visual monitoring of the AHB Fence should be undertaken pre and post construction.

4.2.3 Trigger levels

If observable damage to the AHB Fence due to ground settlement is recorded post construction thenremediation measures should be undertaken as outlined in Section 7.

4.3 Existing seawall deformation monitoring

4.3.1 General

The existing seawall shall be monitored in the Ferry Basin section with survey pins installed postdemolition of the existing wharf deck which currently covers the wall. The survey pins shall beinstalled as pairs spaced at approximately 10 m centres. The pairs should be located in verticalalignment with one pin located at the crest of the existing seawall and one located on the face of thewall at mean sea level. The pins should be suitably protected or set in to the wall to help protectthem during construction.

The ground deformation marks (Type A) located along the length of Quay Street (adjacent to theAHB Fence) in the Queens to Marsden section should also be used to assess lateral deflection of thecrest of the wall in this section. For lateral deflection monitoring of the Queens to Marsden seawallthe frequency and trigger levels are provided in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 below.

The location of the survey pins to be installed are presented on Figure 1004393-122 in Appendix A.

Survey measurements shall be accurate to ±2mm. A record of the survey results should bemaintained on site and forwarded to the client and T+T within three working days of the surveybeing undertaken.

4


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

4.3.2 Monitoring frequency

Due to the deteriorating concrete matrix of the existing seawall, even minor movement of the wallcould cause sudden collapse. In addition, construction traffic is expected to operate near to the crestof the wall. Therefore, monitoring should be carried out at the following intervals:

Prior to construction At least two baseline surveys to establish baseline readings.

During construction Weekly or as required.

After completion of excavation Nil as the wall and survey pins will be obscured by the newpost and panel wall.

4.3.3 Monitoring trigger levels

Monitoring data are to be compared with the design assumptions and baseline readings. Alert andalarm levels at which actions are required to be undertaken are summarised in Table 2. If the alert oralarm levels in Table 2 are reached, the actions outlined in Section 6 should be carried out.

Table 2. Trigger levels for seawall deflections

DeflectionMonitoring ID

Deformation AlertLevel (mm)

Deformation AlarmLevel (mm)

Retaining walldeflection pins 25 50

4.4 Groundwater monitoring

4.4.1 General

Groundwater monitoring shall be undertaken pre and post construction in the Ferry Basin section. Agroundwater monitoring well should be installed landward of the existing seawall in the locationshown on Figure 1004393-122 in Appendix A prior to construction being undertaken and should bemaintained for the duration of the works or reinstated post construction.

As-built borehole logs of the groundwater monitoring wells should be maintained on site andforwarded to the client and T+T. Measurements shall be accurate to ±100mm for all readings.

4.4.2 Monitoring frequency

4.4.2.1 Baseline readings

The groundwater level in the well shall be measured at weekly intervals or as required from aminimum of one month prior to commencement of excavation to establish baseline groundwaterlevels. If the water level readings vary significantly, further readings shall be undertaken to obtainconfidence in the groundwater level/trend prior to commencement of excavation.

4.4.2.2 Completion of excavation

The groundwater level in the monitoring wells shall be measured at monthly intervals for a minimumof three months following the completion of excavation and until a consistent pattern ofgroundwater records are obtained in which no evidence of adverse effects is apparent.

5


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

4.4.3 Trigger levels

T+T will review the results of groundwater monitoring at the completion of excavation and comparewith the baseline readings to ensure groundwater levels have not been adversely affected (i.e. thenew post and panel wall is not preventing water flow) in the Ferry Basin section.

If groundwater levels have been adversely affected by the construction of the post and panel wall,the contingency options in Section 7 should be implemented.

4.5 Ground settlement and building deformation monitoring

4.5.1 General

Ground and building deformation monitoring marks shall be established on the pavements andbuildings near the construction zones at the locations shown on Figure 1004393-122 in Appendix A.Two types of ground settlement marks (Type A and Type B) are specified to identify different triggerlevels.

Survey measurements shall be accurate to ±2mm. A record of the survey results should bemaintained on site and forwarded to the client and T+T within three working days of the surveybeing undertaken.

4.5.2 Settlement monitoring frequency

Surveys shall be carried out at the following intervals:

Prior to construction At least two baseline surveys to establish baseline readings.

During construction Weekly or as required.

After completion of excavation Fortnightly or as required for two months or until such a timefollowing the completion of construction that stablemeasurements are demonstrated and written approval isgranted from the Council that monitoring can cease.

Monitoring frequency may be reduced following the completion of excavation if stablemeasurements are demonstrated and written approval is granted from the Council.

4.5.3 Settlement trigger levels

Monitoring data is to be compared with the design assumptions and baseline readings. Alert andalarm levels at which actions are required to be undertaken are summarised in Table 3. If the alert oralarm levels in Table 3 are reached, the actions outlined in Section 6 shall be carried out.

Table 3: Ground and building deformation mark alert and alarm levels

Mark Type Settlement Mark ID SettlementAlert Level(mm)

SettlementAlarm Level(mm)

DifferentialSettlementAlert Level

DifferentialSettlementAlarm Level

Pavement MarksType A 22 30

1:700 betweenany twogrounddeformationmarks

1:500 betweenany twogrounddeformationmarksType B 10 15

6


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

Mark Type Settlement Mark ID SettlementAlert Level(mm)

SettlementAlarm Level(mm)

DifferentialSettlementAlert Level

DifferentialSettlementAlarm Level

Building Marks Type A 5 10

1:1000between anytwo buildingdeformationmarks

1:700 betweenany twoBuildingdeformationmarks

7


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

4.6 Summary of Monitoring Frequency RequirementsThe monitoring frequency requirements detailed in the previous sections are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of monitoring frequency requirements

Monitoring System Monitoring locations Prior to construction Duringconstruction

After completion of excavation After completion ofconstruction

AHB Fencedeformationmonitoring

Full extent A single baseline conditionsurvey. Nil Single completion survey. Nil

Existing seawalldeformationmonitoring – FerryBasin

12 no. pairs of survey pins(crest and mean sea level) at+/- 10 m spacing along theFerry Basin seawall.

Two baseline readings. Weekly or asrequired.

Nil – The existing seawall andmonitoring pins will be obscuredby the new post and panel wall.

Nil

Groundwatermonitoring

One monitoring welllandward of the existingseawall in the Ferry Basinsection.

Weekly intervals for aminimum of one month or asrequired.

Nil Monthly intervals for a minimumof three months. Nil

Ground and buildingdeformationmonitoring

55 locations betweenPrinces Wharf and MarsdenWharf.

Two baseline readings. Weekly or asrequired.

Fortnightly for two months oruntil stable measurements aredemonstrated and writtenapproval is granted from theCouncil.

Nil

8


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

5 Reporting of monitoring records

5.1 Pre-construction baseline readings

Baseline readings for ground and building deformation, seawall deformation monitoring marks, andgroundwater levels in the Ferry Basin section shall be established prior to construction or excavationas specified in Section 4.

5.2 Reporting intervals and requirements

All monitoring records as detailed in this report shall be compiled and submitted to the Council attwo monthly intervals from the commencement of construction until such time following thecompletion of excavation that stable measurements are demonstrated.

Each report shall include the following:

1. Presentation of visual monitoring records including photographs to record changingconditions

2. Monitoring records presented on a timeline plot3. Comparison of monitoring data with trigger levels4. Previous results set out with an explanation of any trends5. A construction progress summary

6. Any other information relevant to the reporting period (i.e. exceedance of trigger levels andcontingency measures being undertaken).

6 Alert and alarm trigger level response procedures

6.1 Response procedure for alert trigger level exceedancesIf any of the monitoring alert trigger levels are reached then one or more of the contingency optionsdescribed in Section 7 of this plan should be carried out together with the following:

1. Notify the Project Manager;

2. Notify the Council in writing within one working day of the trigger level being exceeded, withdetails of any actions being undertaken;

3. Review the monitoring data, as-built details and geology and compare against theassumptions made in the design analyses;

4. Submit a written letter by a Chartered Professional Engineer to the Council within one weekof alert level exceedance. The letter should provide review and analyses of all monitoringdata relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any recommendations forremedial actions and time frames for implementing these actions. If no remedial actions areconsidered necessary, then justification for this viewpoint is required;

5. Implement the recommendations of the letter; and6. All monitoring pins within 50 m of the monitoring location where the trigger level was

exceeded shall be surveyed at bi-weekly intervals until such time the letter in (4) has beensubmitted to Council. Once the letter has been submitted to Council, monitoring shouldcontinue in accordance with the GSMCP, or in accordance with the recommendations in theletter where additional monitoring is recommended.

If considered necessary:· Increase the monitoring frequency; and

9


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

· Develop a detailed contingency plan and submit to The Council.

6.2 Response procedure for alarm trigger level exceedances

If any of the monitoring alarm trigger levels are reached then the following shall be carried out inaddition to the actions outlined in Section 7:

1. Submit a written letter by a Chartered Professional Engineer to the Council for approvalwithin one week of alarm level exceedance. The letter should provide analyses of allmonitoring data, details of any actions taken, and any recommendations for additionalremedial action, (including whether works need to cease until remedial actions areundertaken); and

2. Once approved by the Council, the recommendations shall be implemented.

Where works have ceased in accordance with the recommendations of the letter in (1), excavationand construction may be resumed once the Council provides written notice to the Consent Holderthat the Council is satisfied that damage to buildings, structures and services is unlikely taking intoaccount any additional mitigation measures recommended in the letter in (1). Alternatively,excavation and construction may be resumed once the owners of potentially affected buildings,structures and services have given written approval for excavation and construction to continue.

7 Contingency options

7.1 General

If any of the monitoring trigger levels are exceeded the general response will be as detailed inSection 6. Specific actions will be selected depending on the exact nature of the problem. Possiblecontingency actions are detailed in the following sections.

7.2 Auckland Harbour Board Fence deformation contingency measures

In the event of damage to the AHB Fence observed post construction due to ground settlement ordeformation then the fence should be repaired to at least the standard pre construction.

7.3 Existing seawall deformation contingency measures

In the event of retaining wall deflections exceeding the monitoring trigger levels, a review of theconstruction methodology shall be carried out to assess the load on the wall. If required one or moreof the following actions may be taken:

· Check that public safety is maintained(this action will always be done)

· Discussions with seawall owner and how the observed deformation might affect the assetand the assets that the seawall supports

· Install additional props to support the seawall

· Install a bund at the toe of the wall using large sand bags or cement stabilised bags tosupport the wall. Alternatively pre-fabricated concrete blocks could be placed to supportthe wall.

· Review and change the construction methodology to prevent adverse loading on the wall.

10


June 2018Job No: 1004393.000.v1.0

7.4 Groundwater monitoring

In the event that groundwater levels landward of the existing seawall post construction are notreasonably consistent with baseline levels, additional hydrogeological analysis should be undertakenand additional drainage measures (e.g. additional weep holes) should be installed.

7.5 Ground and building deformation contingency measures

In the event of ground or building deformation exceeding the monitoring trigger levels, one or moreof the following actions shall be taken:

· Check public safety is maintained (compulsory);

· Discussions on the situation with the property/service owner that may be affected;· Monitor the rate of deformation (assuming that other steps have been undertaken to

address the cause);· Once the cause of the deformation is identified and the significance of the deformation

assessed by an Engineer, then steps to mitigate the effects (if the cause is sourced from theseawall site works rather than nearby unrelated deep excavation works) shall be undertakenby the contractor. These may include;

o Cease excavation works and backfill open excavations with a suitable fill material(such as flowable fill); and

o Install temporary propping to support excavations or structures until a permanentsolution can be provided.

8 ApplicabilityThis report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Auckland Transport, with respect tothe particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any otherpurpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

.......................................................... ...........................….......…...............

Mark Child Richard Reinen-Hamill

Geotechnical Engineer Project Director

MCHI

p:\1004393\issueddocuments\20180629 ground settlement monitoring and contingencyplan_mchi_v1.0.docx

mchi

Stamp

phco

Typewriter

pp

Appendix A: Figures

· Ground Settlement Monitoring Location Plan, SK-GSMCP-001-Rev01

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, AucklandTel. (09) 355 6000 Fax. (09) 307 0265

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-122.dw

g, 122, 12/04/2018 1:16:02 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18

Survey Mark Monitoring Key

= Building settlement mark - Type A

= Ground settlement mark - Type A

= Ground settlement mark - Type B

= Retaining wall deformation marks (Pairs - one located at the. crest of the existing wall and one located at mean sea level) = Groundwater monitoring well

SK-GSMCP-001-Rev01

Ground Settlement Monitoring Location Plan

Appendix D : Site Management Plan

REPORT

Quay Street Seawall UpgradeSite Management Plan for GroundContamination

Prepared forAuckland TransportPrepared byTonkin & Taylor LtdDateJune 2018Job Number1004393.0000.v4

Document Control

Title: Quay Street Seawall Upgrade – Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination

Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: Authorised by:

23 Mar 18 1 Working draft for client review S Moore L Phuah R Reinen-Hamill

18 Apr 18 2 For consent lodgementversion

S Moore L Phuah R Reinen-Hamill

2 May 18 3 For consent lodgementversion – updated forgroundwater results


15 Jun 18 4 S92 version – address Councilcomment on Table 8.1


Distribution:

Auckland Transport Electronic copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor LtdQuay Street Seawall Upgrade - Site Management Plan for Ground ContaminationAuckland Transport

June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Table of contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Background 11.2 Objectives of this SMP 21.3 Regulatory compliance 2

2 Description of proposed Quay Street seawall upgrade works 32.1 Princes Wharf section 32.2 Ferry Basin section 42.3 Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section 42.4 General construction methodology 5

2.4.1 Site setup 52.4.2 General piling methodology 52.4.3 Capping beam installation 6

3 Site condition 73.1 General description 73.2 Site history 73.3 Geology and hydrogeology 73.4 Ground contamination 8

3.4.1 Contaminants of concern 83.4.2 Contamination risks 9

4 Roles and responsibilities 104.1 Organisational roles and responsibilities 104.2 Distribution 104.3 Review and update 104.4 Implementation 11

5 Overview of site management procedures 125.1 Notification and approval process 125.2 Overview of triggers for additional control measures 135.3 Summary of key requirements of the SMP 13

6 Site establishment procedures 156.1 Council notification 156.2 Induction and training 156.3 Site access 156.4 Health and safety facilities 15

7 Health and safety procedures 167.1 Protective equipment 167.2 Personal hygiene 167.3 Identification of new hazards 177.4 Emergency procedures 17

8 Ground disturbance procedures 188.1 Excavated materials and spoil management 188.2 Disposal of surplus excavated materials 198.3 Water management 20

8.3.1 Diversion of “clean” water 208.3.2 Disposal of water 20

8.4 Sediment control 208.5 Dust management 218.6 Odour management 22


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

8.7 Decontamination procedures 228.8 Imported fill 22

9 Monitoring during the works 249.1 Access requirements 249.2 General monitoring 249.3 Water quality monitoring 249.4 Erosion and sediment controls 259.5 Dust monitoring 259.6 Spoil and Fill Monitoring 25

9.6.1 Soil sampling procedures 259.6.2 Laboratory testing requirements 269.6.3 Reporting and data evaluation 26

9.7 Record keeping 2610 Contingency measures 27

10.1 Roles and responsibilities 2710.2 Emergency response procedures 2710.3 Contact with contaminated materials 2710.4 Complaints procedure 2710.5 Notification requirements 2710.6 Dust exposures 2710.7 Odour exposures 2810.8 Water discharges 2810.9 Unexpected contamination conditions 2910.10 Unexpected asbestos management procedures 29

10.10.1 Determination of level of control required 3010.10.2 Air monitoring 3010.10.3 Establishment of asbestos work area 3010.10.4 Personal protective equipment 3110.10.5 Segregation 3110.10.6 Decontamination 3110.10.7 Spoil management 3210.10.8 Validation 32

11 Reporting and validation 3311.1 Validation 3311.2 Information required from the Contractor 3311.3 Reporting 33

12 Applicability 35

Appendix A : Drawings

Appendix B : Agreement and Acknowledgment Sheet

1


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

1 Introduction

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) has been commissioned by Auckland Transport to prepare a site specificSite Management Plan (SMP) for managing ground contamination during the proposed seawallupgrade along Quay Street in Auckland, between Princes Wharf and Marsden Wharf (referred toherein as ‘the site’ refer to Figure 1.1).

This SMP was prepared in accordance with our proposal of 13 December 20171.

Figure 1.1: Site location plan

1.1 Background

The Quay Street seawall extends from the eastern side of Princes Wharf to the western side ofMarsden Wharf in Central Auckland. The seawall forms the harbour edge of a historical reclamation,which supports Quay Street and the services contained within the road corridor.

It has been established that the existing seawall does not meet current design standards for seismicperformance, and that there are sections that are in need of general repair due to scour damage tothe surface of the seawall. There is also the opportunity to create resilience to future climate andchanging use patterns, particularly the impacts of ship wash as ferry and cruise ship operationsintensify their activity.

While the upgrade is part of the overall plan for Downtown Auckland, it is also now an importantenabler of the wider Downtown Infrastructure Development Programme (Downtown Programme) to

1 Tonkin + Taylor Ltd, 13 December 2017. Proposal for Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Specialist Technical Inputs to SupportResource Consent Applications. T+T ref: 1004393 Letter to Auckland Transport

2


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

ready the precinct for the America’s Cup (AC36) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)events in 2021.

The Downtown Programme is a result of a collaboration between Auckland Transport (AT), AucklandCouncil and Panuku Development Auckland. The Programme includes a number of projects as partof overall improvements to the city centre. In addition to the upgrade of the Quay Street seawall,the Programme includes the proposed relocation of Piers 3 and 4, a proposed Downtown PublicSpace, a proposed mooring dolphin at the end of Queens Wharf, and proposed streetscape worksand bus facilities in Quay Street.

T+T previously completed a ground contamination assessment for the project2 which identified that,the presence of soil contamination triggers the need for consent under the requirements of thefollowing regulations:

· The NES Soil regulations3 - specifically as a Restricted Discretionary Activity under Regulation10 for disturbing the soil at a site as there is potential for soil contamination to exceed therelevant standard.

· AUP4 - specifically as a Controlled Activity under Rule E30.6.2.1 for discharges of contaminantsnot meeting Permitted Activity standards but being highly unlikely to cause significant adverseeffects on the environment.

This SMP has been prepared to support the applications for consent being made under the aboveregulations.

1.2 Objectives of this SMP

The objectives of this SMP are to:

· Provide procedures to manage potential ground contamination effects on human health andthe environment during ground disturbance activities associated with the proposed seawallupgrade along Quay Street; and

· Support resource consent applications for ground disturbance works under the NES Soilregulations and AUP.

1.3 Regulatory compliance

This SMP has been prepared in accordance with the following documents:

· Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Contamination Land Management Guidelines No.1 –Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011).

· The “New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil” (herein referred toas the Asbestos in Soil Guidelines) which was published in November 2017 by BRANZ Ltd.

Sampling procedures provided in the plan generally comply with the MfE Contamination LandManagement Guidelines No.5 – Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils (Revised 2011).

The persons preparing this SMP are suitably qualified and experienced practitioners (SQEP) asrequired by the NES Soil regulations and defined in the NES Soil Users’ Guide (April 2012).

2 Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Ground Contamination Assessment. Report prepared for Auckland Transport byTonkin & Taylor Ltd, dated March 2018. Reference: 1004393.0000v2.3 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to ProtectHuman Health) Regulations 2011.4 Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP)

3


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

2 Description of proposed Quay Street seawall upgrade works

The proposed seawall comprises a 680 m long section that extends from the eastern side of PrincesWharf to the western side of Marsden Wharf. The proposed seawall has been divided into foursections for the purpose of resource consent applications and construction, as follows (from west toeast):

· Princes Wharf section;· Ferry Basin section;· Ferry Building section; and· Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section.

A separate resource consent application is being made for each of the sections, and each section willbe constructed as a standalone project once consented. The sections may therefore be constructedsequentially, or there may be some overlap in the construction programme, and this reportconsiders the effects of these scenarios.

Resource consent applications for the Princes Wharf, Ferry Basin, and Queens Wharf to MarsdenWharf sections are to be lodged concurrently. Design options are still being considered for the FerryBuilding section and the resource consent application for this section will be lodged at a later date.

It is currently estimated that a total of some 10,000 m³ of earthworks will be required construct thefirst three sections of the seawall, as follows:

· Princes Wharf: 2,100 m³ over an area of some 1,200 m2;· Ferry Basin: 1,700 m³ over an area of some 1,500 m2; and· Queens Wharf: 6,200 m³ over an area of some 3,000 m2.

Summaries of the works proposed, as they relate to ground contamination matters, are provided inthe following subsections. The reader is referred to the construction methodology report5 for furtherdetail, where necessary. It is noted that the construction methodology (Alta) report identifies arange of options for constructing the piling works for the seawall and a credible assessment of theworking method and working spaces has been developed by Alta. This SMP has been developedbased on the detail in the Alta report. The actual methodology chosen by the successful contractorto construct the works may differ from what has been detailed in the Alta report, depending on thecontractors’ specific available plant, technical skills, and specialist experience. However, the effectsof the actual methodology adopted are likely to remain less than minor if the requirements of thisSMP are implemented.

2.1 Princes Wharf section

An in-ground palisade wall is proposed for the Princes Wharf section of the Quay Street seawallupgrade. The location of the Princes Wharf section is indicated on the Overall Site Plan on DrawingNo. 1004393-102 (refer to Appendix A). For this section, the wall is proposed in the Quay Street roadreserve, behind the existing sea wall.

A palisade wall is comprised of piles at regular spacing forming an in-ground wall, with the spacingappropriate to allow the soil to ‘arch’ between the piles and provide lateral support. Drawing No.1004393-103 shows the proposed location of the palisade wall, being in the current footpath areaon the northern side of Quay Street and crossing the vehicle access way onto Princes Wharf.

5 Auckland Transport Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Construction Methodology for Resource Consent. Report prepared byAlta, dated 16 April 2018.

4


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

The proposed palisade wall will be approximately 105 m in length and consist of approximately900 mm diameter reinforced concrete piles spaced at approximately 2.5 m centres.

The top of the palisade wall piles will be approximately 2 m beneath the ground surface and acapping beam will be constructed connecting the top of the piles. An excavation of at least 2.5mwide by 2.0 m deep (if shoring is used) will be required to allow sufficient working space for blinding,backfill above the capping beam and temporary works. The excavation face could be battered ifenough space was available. A battered trench would be up to 5m wide.

Sections A1 and A2 in Drawing No. 1004393-115 show the location of the proposed palisade wallrelative to the existing seawall as well as the anticipated depth of the piles. The piles will beembedded approximately 3 m into the underlying East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) rock so that thetotal depth of the piles will be about 13 to 20 m beneath the ground surface.

2.2 Ferry Basin section

A post and panel wall is proposed for the Ferry Basin section of the Quay Street seawall upgrade.The location of the Ferry Basin section is indicated on the Overall Site Plan on Drawing No.1004393-102 (refer to Appendix A).

For this section, the post and panel wall is proposed immediately seaward of the existing seawall.Drawing No. 1004393-123 shows the proposed location of the wall, being directly in front of theexisting seawall.

The proposed post and panel wall will be approximately 90 m in length, consisting of approximately900 mm x 900 mm concrete H piles installed inside approximately 1200 mm diameter casing atapproximately 3m centres. Pre-cast concrete panels, approximately 225 mm thick will then beinstalled inside the H piles. An approximate 1300 mm x 1200 mm capping beam is installed on top ofthe posts and panels. Ground anchors may be installed every 6m on a 45-degree angle back into theexisting ground.

As the capping is being installed in front of the existing seawall no excavation is required for thiselement in this section of the project. Rather form work may be propped off the existing wharf, seafloor or 1200 diameter casings.

Sections B1 and B2 in Drawing No. 1004393-135 show the location of the proposed post and panelwall relative to the existing seawall as well as the anticipated depth of the piles. The piles will beembedded approximately 3 m into the underlying ECBF rock so that the total depth of the piles willbe about 11 to 15 m beneath the ground surface at the top of the existing seawall.

2.3 Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section

An in-ground palisade wall is proposed for the Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section of the QuayStreet seawall upgrade. The location of the Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf section is indicated onthe Overall Site Plan on Drawing No. 1004393-102 (refer to Appendix A). For this section, the in-ground palisade wall is proposed in the Quay Street road reserve, landward of the existing sea wall.Drawing No’s 1004393-163 and 1004393-164 show the proposed location of the palisade wall, beingin the current footpath area on the northern side of Quay Street between the road and the HarbourBoard Fence.

The proposed palisade wall will be approximately 300 m in length. The wall will consist ofapproximately 900 mm diameter reinforced concrete piles spaced at approximately 2.5 m centres.

In a similar manner, and involving similar excavations as the Princes Wharf section, the top of thepalisade wall piles will be approximately 2 m beneath the ground surface and a capping beam will beconstructed connecting the top of the piles.

5


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Sections D1, D2 and D3 in Drawing No. 1004393-175 and 1004393-176 show the location of theproposed palisade wall relative to the existing seawall as well as the anticipated depth of the piles.The piles will be embedded approximately 3 m into the underlying ECBF rock so that the total depthof the piles will be about 10 to 24 m beneath the ground surface.

2.4 General construction methodology

The key elements of the construction methodology that relate to ground contamination matters aresummarised in the following sections. Where necessary the reader is referred to the more detaileddescriptions provided in the construction methodology report6.

2.4.1 Site setup· Each work area will be enclosed with a timber hoarding, 2.4m high. All concrete pavers will be

lifted and a 400-500mm thick gravel surface laid to provide a level area for plant to operateon. Trees, street furniture, lighting and signs will be removed and temporarily relocated whererequired.

· Existing drains will be protected or relocated to maintain stormwater flows. The site perimeterwill also have a temporary asphalt bund, or similar, installed around it to redirect externalstormwater flows from the site.

· Systems for the capture/pumping and disposal of stormwater and ground water will beestablished.

· Silt booms and silt curtains will be utilised to prevent the dispersal of any sediment from thepiling operation to the harbour.

· Emergency spill kits will be on hand in the event of any oils, greases or chemicals beingdispersed into the harbour.

2.4.2 General piling methodology· Casing is advanced using the rotary head or casing oscillator, as the casing is advanced the soil

inside is removed by a drilling tool with a new section of casing added as the casing isadvanced. The casing is drilled to the designed depth (top of ECBF) and bored until the rocksocket depth achieved.

· Oversized casing will likely be used as a starter casing, with a secondary casing used inside thestarter casing for the complete bore.

· Polymer will be used to prevent collapse of the hole and maintain a positive head within thecasing.

· The drilling and soil extraction process is repeated every 1.5 m to 2 m until the required depthis excavated.

· The casing is advanced into the underlying rock where a ‘seal’ is formed to preventgroundwater / seawater intrusion.

· The excavated material is removed using the piling auger which is lifted to the surface to beemptied. The auger is emptied by alternating rotation, preferably into a skip or bin to controlmaterial on the site prior to loading onto trucks with an excavator.

· The reinforcing cage will come in sections and will need to be spliced together into a singlelength prior to lifting into the hole. The cage can then be centralised and fixed into thepermanent location. The reinforcing cage will be lowered into the pile bore using the siteservice crane.

6 Quay Street Seawall, Consent Methodology. Report prepared for Auckland Transport by Alta, dated 15 March 2018.

6


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

· The pile will be dewatered and then concreted using a tremie pipe attached to a concretepump. Using a concrete pump will mitigate the risk of uncontrolled loss of concrete to theenvironment from skips. Any water inside the pile will be disposed of either by treatment onsite and discharge to the harbour (following testing) or to the sewer under a trade wastelicence.

2.4.3 Capping beam installation· Installation of the capping beam will commence once all piles have been installed, or once a

sufficient section of piles have been installed to provide adequate working space. Due to thesize of the capping beam an excavation of some 2.5m wide and 2.0 m deep (if shoring used)would be required to allow sufficient working space for blinding, backfill above the cappingbeam and temporary works. Depending on space and proximity of adjacent infrastructure acombination of trench shields, sheet piling and battering will be used to provide a stabletrench. A battered trench would be up to 5 m wide.

· Excavation of the trench will be carried out by excavator.· Once the trench has been excavated to the level required for forming the capping beam, the

excess piles will be cut off. Broken out concrete from the pile heads would be loaded intotrucks and disposed from site.

· Blinding concrete will be poured to the underside of the capping beam, either direct from thetruck or by use of a concrete pump, depending on the location. Reinforcing steel, eitherprefabricated or tied in place would be installed. Reusable formwork would be placed toeither sides of the beam, and concrete poured following this. Again, this may either be placeddirect from the truck or by use of a concrete pump.

· Once the capping beam has cured, formwork will be removed and imported backfill, such asGAP40 or flowable fill would be imported and placed up to the underside of the pavement subbase.

· Site to be demobilised and moved to next location. Timber hoardings to be removed anditems such as street furniture, street lighting and traffic signals to be replaced dependent onthe next phase of works.

7


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

3 Site condition

Detailed descriptions of the site setting are provided in T+T’s ground contamination assessment(refer to Section 1.1). The following provides a summary of this information however the reader isdirected to the original reports for fuller descriptions.

3.1 General description

The Quay Street seawall retains reclamation fill at the northern end of the Auckland Central BusinessDistrict (CBD). The reclamation supports the heavily trafficked Quay Street, multiple service utilities,protected structures and many multi-storey commercial buildings.

Tourist attractions such as the Viaduct Harbour are located near the subject seawall section. CruiseShips dock at Princes Wharf and Queens Wharf with passengers entering Auckland at the westernend of Quay Street. The Downtown Ferry Terminal is located on the western side of Queens Wharf.

Multiple private companies currently occupy Princes Wharf (leased off Ports of Auckland) whichincludes the Harbourside Building, a multi storey hotel and a public parking area. Adventure tourismcompanies occupy the platforms in the Ferry Basin area.

Ports of Auckland owns Captain Cook Wharf and the adjacent platforms. They appear to be primarilyused for stockpiling small machinery, car parking and operation of smaller vessels.

3.2 Site history

Site history information indicates that Quay Street is formed on land reclaimed from the harbourbetween 1870s and 1925, with the seawall constructed post 1900. Since that time, the project areaand adjoining CMA have been used for port and transport related activities. A wide range ofcommercial (although principally warehousing and offices/retail) activities have been undertaken onthe sites that adjoin the project area.

3.3 Geology and hydrogeology

The ground conditions beneath the site generally comprise fill overlying natural Tauranga Groupsediments, overlying Waitematā Group rock. The soil profile obtained from the geotechnicalinvestigations conducted in support of this project is shown in Table 3.1.

The groundwater regime in this area is governed by the presence of the Waitematā Harbour. Thegroundwater is highly stratified in this area, and can generally be discussed in terms of shallow anddeep groundwater systems separated by the lower Tauranga Group and/or the weathered ECBF.

Groundwater level monitoring has shown that the groundwater level in the reclamation fill is similarto and follows tidal fluctuations, with a lag behind the tidal level of approximately 20 minutes.Therefore the seawall and the drainage material and reclamation behind the seawall is consideredhighly permeable.

Extensive groundwater pump testing carried out by T+T in preparation for the Environment Courthearing for the Britomart Transport Centre in 1997 confirmed that there is very limited connectionbetween the unconfined (surficial) fill and Tauranga Group aquifer and the underlying ECBF aquifer.

8


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Table 3.1: Observed soil profile

Depth belowground levelto top oflayer (m)

Unitthickness(m)

Geologicalunit

Description

Up to 13 3 – 13 m ReclamationFill

The nature of the fill varies along the length of Quay Street.The fill comprises hardfill road basecourse (i.e. scoriaceousgravels) overlying stiff clayey silt subgrade fill material,followed by reclamation fill. Reclamation fill consists of amixture of silty clay, clayey silt, silty sand and sand, ofvariable consistencies and relative densities. Occasionalinclusions of siltstone and sandstone are present.Demolition debris such as pieces of brick, wire, wood andglass were also identified.The fill immediately to the rear of the seawall is primarilyscoria.

3 – 23 m 0 – 20 m TaurangaGroup

The recent marine sediments consist of dark-grey, firm tostiff, sandy silt and silt with minor clay. Layers of loose siltysand have also been identified. The marine sedimentscontain significant amount of organic matter such as shellfragments and decomposed wood.The lower Tauranga Group sediments consist of grey/green,firm to stiff, clayey silt with some organic matter.

5 – 15 m - ECBF This unit comprises an alternating sequence of siltstone andsandstone which is overlaid by approximately 2 m ofextremely weathered material (residual soils), comprisingdense silty sand.

3.4 Ground contamination

Collection and analysis of soil samples from across the project area shows that contamination bymetals, PAHs and asbestos (recent marine sediments only) is present, albeit at low concentrationswhich comply with the relevant acceptance criteria for the protection of human health and theenvironment.

However, investigation data from the surrounding area identified occasional (rare) exceedances ofthe acceptance criteria for the protection of human health and environmental receptors. Althoughthe exceedances were typically associated with the presence of industrial wastes, demolitionmaterials, or other specific sources of contamination, which do not appear to be prevalent in thevicinity of the seawall.

Collection and analysis of groundwater samples, both within the project area and in its surrounds,suggests that groundwater intercepted during the works complies with the relevant acceptancecriteria for the protection of human health and the environment. On this basis it should be able tobe discharged to the harbour following removal of suspended sediment, i.e. without needing totreat for chemical contaminants. However, due to the potential presence of hotpots in thereclamation fill ongoing monitoring of water discharges is recommended during the constructionworks.

3.4.1 Contaminants of concern

In summary, the principal contaminants of concern identified by the site investigations include:

· Residual (adsorbed in soils) hydrocarbons which include:

9


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

- Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); and/or- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds.

· Metals; and/or· Asbestos in recent marine sediments and potential for it to be present around infrastructure

constructed from asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or if any demolition derivedwastes that may have been placed during more recent filling of the project area.

3.4.2 Contamination risks

The available information indicates that the potential for onsite human health risk during orfollowing the proposed seawall construction works is likely to be negligible. Similarly, there is likelyto be negligible risk to the surrounding environment during or following the proposed seawallconstruction works. However, due to the variable nature of the reclamation fill the presence ofhotspots cannot be excluded. On this basis a precautionary approach to managing the potential riskis proposed.

Contaminants may enter the body through inhalation, ingestion or skin adsorption, however, it isusually the inhalation pathway that is most important. The principal risks posed by the residualcontamination are summarised below:

1 Potential risk to on-site worker human health from direct skin contact and ingestion ofcontaminated soil during ground breaking, excavation, trenching or other intrusive works.

2 Potential risk to human health from inhalation (of dust) and ingestion and contact withairborne dust during any excavation works; and

3 Potential risk to the environment associated with:a Uncontrolled discharges of contaminated surface water or groundwater, andb Inappropriate handling or disposal of contaminated soils or waters.

The following is noted with respect to the presence of asbestos fibres in recent marine sediments:

· Asbestos fibres and fines have only been identified to be present at concentrations of<0.001 % w/w. The presence of asbestos in these materials likely reflects the entrainment ofasbestos fibres and fines in stormwater which discharges into the harbour from the manyasbestos clad roofs in the catchment. As a result it is considered that there is a low likelihoodof encountering higher concentrations of asbestos in the recent marine sediments.

· The Asbestos in Soils Guidelines direct that at these low concentrations disturbance of thesematerials can occur as “unlicensed asbestos works” under typical earthworks controls withoutthe need for specific asbestos PPE etc. This SMP has been prepared to address therequirements for unlicensed asbestos works. However, if higher concentrations of asbestosare encountered or suspected, for example around infrastructure constructed from ACM, thenthe contingency measures set out in Section 10.10 must be implemented.

Significant exposure to these hazards is considered unlikely, due to the short term nature of theproposed works and likely low concentrations of contamination. However, as some of the potentialcontaminants are known to be especially hazardous, it is important that exposure to these hazardsbe minimised to the maximum practicable extent. Exposure to chemical hazards will be controlled bya combination of good hygiene practices, decontamination procedures, and wearing appropriatepersonal protective equipment. These control measures are detailed in the following sections.

10


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

4 Roles and responsibilities

4.1 Organisational roles and responsibilities

The proposed hierarchy of roles and responsibilities under this SMP is provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Key project organisational roles and responsibilities

Company/Organisation Role and responsibilities

Consent Holder (AucklandTransport)

Responsible for overseeing implementation of SMP and ensuringcompliance with consent conditions.

Contractor The Contractor’s site manager shall be responsible for ensuring works areundertaken in accordance with requirements of the RAP, conditions ofconsent, and other relevant plans/documentation.

Contaminated Land Specialist Contaminated Land Specialist responsible for provision of groundcontamination advice and undertaking periodic inspections during theworks and validation reporting on completion of the works. Can also actas the Independent Competent Person (see below), if the ContaminatedLand Specialist meets the requirements of regulation 41(3) of theAsbestos Regulations.

Independent Competent Person Responsible for undertaking air monitoring and clearance inspections ofplant/equipment where required in relation to asbestos contamination.Can be fulfilled by Contaminated Land Specialist if they meet therequirements of regulation 41(3) of the Asbestos Regulations.

Auckland Council (Regulatory) Monitoring and compliance of consent conditions.

4.2 Distribution

Responsibility for distribution of the SMP to contractors carrying out the works lies with AucklandTransport.

In accordance with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and amendments, it isthe responsibility of the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU, previously referred toas the controller of the place of work) to communicate to any persons undertaking work on the site,the extent of residual contamination, associated hazards and recommended procedures. Copies ofthe SMP shall therefore be provided to any persons undertaking any ground disturbance works atthe site.

4.3 Review and update

This SMP is a live document. Updates to the SMP may need to be made from time to time to caterfor changes in the understanding of ground contamination and/or accepted best operationalpractice and/or regulations.

Any variations to the SMP proposed, during project works, by the Contractor must be approved byAuckland Transport prior to works commencing, or the variation being implemented if works havealready commenced. If the changes are substantive they may also need to be approved by therelevant team leader at Auckland Council (Council regulatory) prior to implementation. It is theresponsibility of the Contractor to distribute any approved changes to the SMP to the relevantparties involved in project works.

11


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

4.4 Implementation

Responsibility for the implementation of the SMP lies with Auckland Transport appointedContractor.

A Contaminated Land Specialist shall be retained by Auckland Transport to provide specialist adviceas required during the works. The Contaminated Land Specialist shall be sufficiently qualified andexperienced to comply with the “suitably experienced practitioner” as required by the NES Soil UsersGuide (April 2012).

12


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

5 Overview of site management procedures

The procedures described in this SMP shall be implemented and followed during the exercise of allground disturbance activities, including but not limited to:

· Removal of site surfacing/capping material (paving materials, asphalt, concrete,building/basement ground slabs etc.);

· All excavation, ground disturbance or intrusive works;· Temporary stockpiling of excavated materials;· Loading of excavated materials and transportation of these materials offsite (soil and/or

groundwater); and· Disposal of soil materials and/or water, including dewatering.

The procedures presented in this SMP are based on:

· The contamination risks described in Section 3.4.2. If the proposed works fall outside of thoseassumed, then further investigation and/or additional management procedures may berequired.

· Available data, some of which is from nearby and historic investigations. The procedurespresented in this SMP may need to be modified to address any changes in the contaminationrisk profile that may be identified as new data is collected. There are also situations wheremore current data will be required to be obtained by the contractor during the work,particularly for surplus soil disposal characterisation.

The procedures are not intended to relieve the PCBU of either their responsibility for the health andsafety of their workers, contractors and the public, or their responsibility for protection of theenvironment. All procedures employed by the Contractor shall comply with the relevant Councilbylaws and conditions of any resource/building consent(s).

5.1 Notification and approval process

The following notification/approval process is to be followed in the event of:

· Any variations to the SMP are proposed, either prior to or during works; and· Any ground contamination incident occurs during works on the site.

ContractorAuckland

Transport’s ProjectManager

Auckland Council(Regulatory)

ContaminatedLand Specialist

13


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

5.2 Overview of triggers for additional control measures

It is expected that the development works proposed by Auckland Transport (refer to Section 1.1) willlargely be able to be undertaken under standard earthworks procedures (sediment and erosioncontrols etc.) supplemented with use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such asgloves, and disposal of spoil/wastes. However, Council must be notified in advance of all works (referto Section 6.1) and all workers must be given training on working with and around potentiallycontaminated materials (refer to Section 6.2).

The additional contamination control and monitoring measures specified in this SMP should typicallyonly be required under the following circumstances:

1 Where the potential for direct contact (including accidental contact) with soils exists, e.g.during manual handling/excavation activities, then full-length clothing and impermeablegloves shall be worn (as a minimum, refer to Section 7.1 for additional details);

2 Where offsite disposal is proposed the procedures described in Section 8.2 shall beimplemented, this may include the requirement to test the spoil materials prior to disposal(refer to Section 9.6);

3 Where reuse of reclamation fill or Tauranga Group soils onsite is proposed the suitability ofthese materials shall be confirmed prior to reuse (refer to Section 8.1); and

4 Contingency and mitigation measures are required to be implemented in the event thatasbestos or other unexpected contamination conditions are encountered, discharges occurand/or complaints are received in relation to the works (refer to Section 10). These measuresmay include seeking advice from a Contaminated Land Specialist.

While many of the control measures summarised above only need to be implemented on an ‘asrequired basis’, it would be prudent to make provision for the supply of additional PPE andmonitoring equipment to avoid unexpected costs and/or delays should any of these items berequired during the works.

5.3 Summary of key requirements of the SMP

A summary of the key requirements of the SMP are provided for ease of reference in Table 5.1.However, it is recommended that the detailed procedures set out in the following sections are alsoconsulted prior to any project planning or implementation commencing.

14


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Table 5.1: Summary of key requirements of the SMP

Timing Key task Details

Prior to groundworkscommencing

Site set up · Notify Auckland Council of proposed works;· Appoint appropriate site supervisor and induct workers;· Establish site access and work zones;· Establish health and safety requirements as per Section 7,

including making provision for necessary PPE: disposablegloves etc.;

· Establish earthworks controls as per Section 8;· Ensure resources required for implementing monitoring and

contingency measures (if necessary) are available; and· Arrange disposal permits for surplus spoil.

During theworks

General SMPcompliance

· Maintain health and safety and ground disturbance controlsas per Sections 7 and 8;

· If soil is to be disposed offsite soil samples may need to becollected and tested;

· Retain all weighbridge and disposal dockets and provide toAuckland Transport project manager; and

· Ensure imported material meets requirements in Section 8.8.

Alert AucklandTransportprojectmanager

If any of the following situations arise:· Contaminated soil is encountered that includes:

- Odours (petroleum, oil)- Discolouration (black, green/blue staining most common)- Inclusions of deleterious materials (e.g. plastic, rubber,

metal etc.)- Asbestos containing materials (ACM).

· Groundwater with an oil sheen, odour or discolouration isencountered;

· In the event of any contamination related effect, complaint orincident; and

· In the event that any of the contamination relatedcontingency measures defined in Section 10 are required tobe implemented

Within onemonth ofcompletion ofthe relevantworks

Providecontaminatedland-relatedInformation toAucklandTransportprojectmanager

· Details of any complaints relating to ground contaminationmade during the works;

· Details of unexpected encounters/events and the actiontaken;

· Details of visits made by Council representatives; and· Confirmation of the disposal destination(s) of all spoil and

the verification test results undertaken (where required)for disposal permitting

· Documentation confirming the source, and wherenecessary testing (refer to Section 9.9), of any fill or soilsimported during works;

15


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

6 Site establishment procedures

The procedures set out in this section shall be implemented by the Contractor prior to any grounddisturbance works commencing. All procedures employed by the Contractor shall comply with therelevant Council bylaws and conditions of any resource/building consent(s).

6.1 Council notification

Auckland Council shall be notified prior to ground disturbance works commencing on site, as per theresource consent conditions.

6.2 Induction and training

All personnel involved in undertaking ground disturbance activities on the site shall be required toundergo a site safety induction before commencing work. Specific training must be given on risksassociated with potentially contaminated materials, minimum requirements for PPE and its use, andon good hygiene practices to minimise risks. The purpose of the safety induction is to make theworker aware of the hazards, safe working procedures, safety equipment and requirements and theaction plan in case of an emergency.

All personnel undertaking ground disturbance activities must sign the Agreement andAcknowledgment Sheet to confirm that they understand and agree to abide by the provisions of thisSMP (see Appendix B).

6.3 Site access

Prior to works commencing, the Contractor shall ensure that a number of structures shall beemplaced to aid in the management aspects of site safety and environmental compliance. Theseinclude the following:

· Signage, including works information and health and safety requirements;· Fencing, where appropriate, to exclude entry by the general public; and· Silt and sediment control measures.

6.4 Health and safety facilities

Details on health and safety requirements relating to contamination hazards are addressed inSection 7. Prior to works commencing, the Contractor shall ensure that the necessary personalprotection equipment (PPE) is available and that all relevant personnel are familiar with itsapplication and use.

16


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

7 Health and safety procedures

General protocols relating to the presence of potentially contaminated material are described in thissection and should be included or referenced in site/task-specific risk assessments (such as a jobsafety analysis (JSA), or similar). The relevance of these protocols and level of protection requiredshould be reviewed during the preparation of site/task-specific risk assessments.

As described in Section 3.4.2, previous assessments have shown that it is rare for contaminationconditions in the vicinity of the site to exceed the relevant acceptance criteria for the protection ofhuman health. As a result the works are considered to present a low risk to health. However, due tothe variable nature of the reclamation fill the presence of hotspots cannot be excluded. Thefollowing procedures are therefore proposed on a precautionary basis.

7.1 Protective equipment

The wearing of the following PPE will be mandatory for all personnel involved in ground disturbanceactivities where the potential for direct contact (including accidental contact) with contaminatedmaterials exists:

· Full-length clothing; and· Impermeable gloves, for example nitrile, polyvinyl alcohol or viton, however, the resistance of

the gloves to the contaminants likely to be encountered on-site should be confirmed prior touse;

Generally these requirements are expected to be limited to personnel undertaking manualhandling/excavation activities which may place them in direct contact with potentially contaminatedmaterials. Personnel who are operating machinery, such as excavators and trucks, and are thereforeunlikely to come into direct contact with contaminated materials are exempt from theserequirements while they are operating the equipment.

Additional requirements such as safety glasses, dust masks, disposable or splash/water proofcoveralls etc. may be required depending on the scale and location of the works. The conditionsunder which the need for additional requirements will be triggered shall be identified in the projecthealth and safety plan but, as a minimum, shall include:

· Dust masks – when visible windblown dusts are present; and· Splash/water proof coveralls - where direct contact with potentially contaminated water may

occur, for example when transferring/disposing of potentially contaminated surface and/orgroundwater;

Note: Workers on contaminated sites can be subject to unusual stresses, for example, manual workwhile wearing dust masks or respirators, or exposure to elevated concentrations of contaminants. Itwould be prudent to check that personnel working under the requirements of this SMP do not haveany pre-existing condition which might place them at risk as a result of such stresses.

7.2 Personal hygiene

All workers shall be briefed at the induction on the requirements for personal hygiene. Thefollowing shall be observed for all workers and visitors to the site:

· Eating, drinking or smoking shall only be permitted in specified areas of the site, and afterdecontamination has occurred;

· Fresh protective gloves and dust masks shall be used daily (as a minimum); and· Hand to mouth and hand to face contact shall be avoided onsite.

17


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Further details regarding hygiene and decontamination are presented in Section 8.7.

7.3 Identification of new hazards

The Contractor is responsible for reviewing any new work element and assessing whether there areany new associated hazards, and whether these can be eliminated, isolated or minimised. TheContractor shall seek review by Auckland Transport project manager, who will seek ContaminatedLand Specialist input if necessary. The Contractor shall then instruct all staff on the health and safetyprocedures associated with the new hazard.

7.4 Emergency procedures

Emergency procedures appropriate to the proposed works shall be established prior to the start ofworks. The only additional emergency requirement relating to working on a contaminated site isthat provision should be made to notify any responding emergency personnel of the presence ofcontamination. A copy of this SMP should be available at the work site so it can be referred to byemergency personnel, if necessary.

18


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

8 Ground disturbance procedures

8.1 Excavated materials and spoil management

The following procedures shall be applied when handling and disposing of all excavated materialsand/or spoil derived from site:

· Unless appropriately characterised all materials excavated from the site, shall be treated asbeing contaminated. No materials are to be considered as “cleanfill” unless further verificationof the contamination status of the material is undertaken prior to the commencement ofworks;

· It is assumed that excavated materials should generally be able to be reused withoutrestriction (other than for geotechnical reasons) on the site. However, the Contaminated LandSpecialist should be consulted to confirm this prior to any materials being reused, including byappropriate testing where necessary;

· Wherever possible, excavated spoil should be loaded directly into trucks (or sealed transferskips/bins for piling spoil), i.e. without stockpiling. However, temporary stockpiling, whererequired, will be managed as follows:- Stockpiling of material destined for offsite disposal shall be minimised as far as possible

with material regularly removed from the site;- The stockpile(s) shall only be established in areas where stormwater (surface runoff)

diversion and collection/soakage systems and silt control measures have beenimplemented, as described in Sections 8.3 and 8.4;

- All stockpiles of excavated materials shall be covered when the site is not active (atnight and over weekends etc.). The method of covering should be adequate to preventgeneration of dusts and/or odours from the stockpiled materials; and

- Obviously contaminated materials (stained, odorous etc., refer to Section 10.7) shall besegregated wherever possible so that stockpiles of these materials can be coveredwhen the stockpile is not in operation (and as a minimum at the end of each day) toprevent the generation of dust and/or the ingress of rainwater into the material, andtherefore minimise the potential for generation of leachate. Covers shall comprise highgrade polythene and be appropriately secured against the weather.

· Trucks shall be loaded where runoff and possible spills/dust during loading will be controlledand contained;

· Trucks shall have their wheels either swept down or washed before they leave site. Thisactivity will be undertaken just prior to the truck exiting the site;

· Trucks shall have their loads covered by tarpaulins during transport of material to theapproved disposal site;

· The details of each load (e.g. truck registration number, tracking dockets) shall be recordedonsite to allow reconciliation against the disposal site weighbridge documentation; and

· Should unusually coloured or odorous soil/fill be identified during the site works, theContractor shall contact Auckland Transport’s project manager (who will seek ContaminatedLand Specialist input if necessary) to visually inspect the material and provide additionaladvice regarding its safe handling and disposal and the requirement for the collection of anyvalidation samples of excavated material.

19


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

8.2 Disposal of surplus excavated materials

Surplus spoil shall be disposed according to the procedures outlined below in Table 8.1. Theprocedures have been established in order to avoid delays and provide assurance to AucklandTransport that soil excavated as a result of the earthworks is being managed appropriately. Materialtesting and disposal requirements shall be as per Table 8.1 and Section 9.6.

Disposal of all materials is subject to approval by the landfill operator(s) and the necessaryapprovals/permits shall be obtained from the disposal destination prior to transportation of anymaterials from the site. All weighbridge dockets and a summary sheet shall be retained for inclusionin the validation report (refer to Section 11).

Table 8.1: Disposal procedures

Material Characteristics Testing requirements Possible DisposalDestination

Concrete and pavers

Cement based surface coverings across pavedareas of the site and construction concrete,excludes asphalt.

Nil

Provided the material is free fromstaining, odour and deleteriousmaterials

Recycling orreuse (excludingrebar), if notrecycled/reusedmay requiredisposal asmanaged fill

Natural rock boulders NilProvided the rock is free fromstaining, odour and deleteriousmaterials and meets the AUP cleanfilldefinition

Reuse or cleanfill

Recent marine sediments

Harbour sediments have been shown tocontain traces of asbestos

Testing required unless sufficientexisting data is available

Existing investigation data to beprovided to the disposal facility toconfirm testing requirements (if any).

If required, testing to be undertakenas per Section 9.6 at a rate to beagreed with the disposal siteoperator (but not less than 1 sampleper 500 m3 of spoil to be disposed)

Facility licensedto receive lowlevel asbestoswastes (likelylimited to RidgeRoad Quarries, orRedvale orHampton Downslandfills)

Reclamation fill, historic marine sediments andasphalt pavements

Only materials derived from landside works

Testing required unless sufficientexisting data is available

Existing investigation data to beprovided to the disposal facility toconfirm testing requirements (if any).

If required, testing to be undertakenas per Section 9.6 at a rate to beagreed with the disposal siteoperator (but not less than 1 sampleper 500 m3 of spoil to be disposed)

Likely managedfill but subject toreview of testdata

20


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Material Characteristics Testing requirements Possible DisposalDestination

EBCF residual soils and rock

Where it is practical to separate these from theabove materials

Nil

Provided the material is free fromstaining, odour and deleteriousmaterials and meets the AUP cleanfilldefinition

Cleanfill (or reuseas appropriate)

Odorous or unsuitable materials

These may include materials more heavilycontaminated than expected

Testing Required

Testing required as per Section 9.6 ata rate to be agreed with the disposalsite operator (but not less than 1sample per 500 m3 of spoil to bedisposed)

Dependant ontesting resultsbut likely landfill

8.3 Water management

8.3.1 Diversion of “clean” water

Separation and diversion of clean stormwater away from areas of ground disturbance is standardpractice for any earthworks activity but becomes far more important where contaminants arepresent. Any contact between clean stormwater and potentially contaminated soils/spoil etc. meansthe water can no longer be discharged to stormwater without treatment, or prior testing to confirmthat it meets the relevant discharge criteria (refer to Section 9.3).

As all materials (sub-base, soils etc.) exposed in the project area must be considered to becontaminated (unless proven otherwise) it is essential that the construction methodology providesfor separation and diversion of clean stormwater away from areas of ground disturbance to thegreatest extent practicable. Temporary bunding systems including socks, sand bags etc. shall beemployed as necessary.

8.3.2 Disposal of water

The data available to date suggest that groundwater intercepted by the works is likely to be suitablefor disposal to stormwater following removal of any entrained sediment, and amendment of pHwhere it has come into contact with new concrete. However, as the reclamation fill materials maycontain contaminants that could affect surface water quality, the quality of any water dischargesgenerated from the site shall be confirmed prior to discharge. Monitoring procedures are specifiedin Section 9.3.

Where discharges cannot meet the standards required for discharge to stormwater, or unexpectedcontamination conditions are encountered, the contingency measures defined in Section 10.8 shallbe implemented.

8.4 Sediment control

No debris or spoil generated by the works shall be allowed to be discharged into the stormwatersystem or CMA.

Erosion and sediment control shall be managed in accordance with:

· Council’s guidelines and other applicable legislation. In particular AC Guideline Document2016/005 Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the AucklandRegion (GD05, 2016); and

21


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

· The Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plans prepared for theproject7.

Stormwater and sediment shall be controlled by the following measures:

· Maintaining stabilised entrance/exits. Alternatively, the stabilised entrance/exit could beomitted if the route is separated from the rest of the site by perimeter bunding and theconstruction methodology refined to ensure no tracking of sediment within the access routeor onto the main roads;

· Managing both clean and contaminated water flows in accordance with the proceduresdescribed in Section 8.3; and

· Silt fences and runoff diversion bunds and swales shall be utilised as appropriate to capturesediment in surface water runoff in areas around the perimeter of the works areas. Catchpitprotection may also be required on the surrounding road;

To ensure good practice:

· The entry/exit point shall be reapplied with aggregate if excessive sediment build up occurs;· Erosion and sediment control measures shall be upgraded/ modified where necessary;· Sediment fences shall be replaced if the fabric is ripped or otherwise damaged. They shall be

retrenched if needed; and· The weather conditions along with the performance of the erosion and sediment control

measures shall be monitored on at least a daily basis, and after every significant rainfall event.

Erosion and sediment control measures shall remain in place until the site surfaces are returned to astabilised condition.

8.5 Dust management

Any dusts generated from the site have the potential to contain contaminants. If not suppressedduring windy conditions, discharge of contaminated airborne particulate matter may occur.Therefore, to avoid dust generation, should dry conditions prevail, the following control andmonitoring systems shall be put in place:

· Maintain damp conditions using a water truck and/or water sprays in trafficked areas andwithin the excavation and loading areas;

· Stockpiling of material shall be minimised as far as practicable with material regularlyremoved from site (refer to Section 8.1), however, if required stockpiles shall be kept damp;and

· Dust controls shall comply with the applicable Council guidelines, regulations and otherapplicable legislation.

· Reference shall also be made to the Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and ManagementResponse Plans prepared for the project (refer to Section 8.4).

7 Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plans prepared for Auckland Transport by Tonkin &Taylor Ltd:

· Quay Street Seawall Upgrade Project, Princes Wharf Section Adaptive Environmental Monitoring andManagement Response Plan;

· Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Ferry Basin Section Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and ManagementResponse Plan; and

· Quay Street Seawall Upgrade, Queens Wharf to Marsden Wharf Section Adaptive Monitoring and ManagementResponse Plan.

22


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Monitoring and contingency measures for dust abatement are defined in Sections 9.5 and 10.6respectively.

8.6 Odour management

Significant quantities of odour generating materials have not been encountered by investigationspreviously undertaken in the vicinity of the site and are therefore not expected to be encounteredduring these works. However, should odorous materials be encountered the procedures described inSection 10.7 shall be implemented.

8.7 Decontamination procedures

Decontamination of personnel and portable equipment must be carried out to reduce safety, healthand environmental risks and limit the migration of contaminants (from waste material, soil, water,equipment and PPE) around, and outside, the site. All personnel and equipment involved in groundbreaking activities must be thoroughly decontaminated before leaving the site. Decontaminationfacilities shall comprise, as a minimum:

· Facilities for storing and changing PPE;· Boot wash facilities;· A hand and face wash facility; and,· Bins for disposal of contaminated gloves and other consumables.

The following steps must be taken for decontamination of all personnel and equipment:

· Solid and liquid wastes shall be handled as specified in Sections 8.2 and 8.3;· All equipment, including heavy earthmoving equipment, shall be decontaminated before it

leaves the site. This shall consist of removal of all soil and dust from parts that have come intocontact with contaminated soil or groundwater. Wash down water and sediment shall becontained to allow collection for treatment and / or disposal as specified in Section 8.3. ; and

· Once all equipment has been decontaminated, all personnel shall undergo personaldecontamination comprising:- Rinsing and / or scrubbing of boots, gloves and other PPE to remove dirt and dust

residues;- Removal of all PPE with disposable items such as gloves and dust mask (if worn) placed

in a plastic bag or drum for waste collection, and- Thorough washing of hands and face with soap and water.

All personnel need to complete the personal decontamination procedures whenever they stop work,i.e. for meal breaks, toilet breaks etc. Decontamination shall be undertaken immediately in the eventof any body parts coming in direct contact with any soil and / or groundwater.

The work area shall be decontaminated at the completion of works within that area. This shallconsist of removal of all soil and dust from the ground surface by sweeping, scraping and / orwashing down as appropriate.

8.8 Imported fill

In the event that any fill or soils required to be imported to the site, the materials shall compriseeither:

· Granular materials which are sourced directly from a licensed quarry. Such material will notrequire testing, provided documentation confirming the source of the material (for example

23


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

weighbridge dockets or invoices and a summary sheet) is retained for inclusion in thevalidation report (refer to Section 11); or

· If soil or other fill materials needs to be imported, then any imported those materials shalloriginate from:- A source that has previously been approved by Auckland Council regulatory services as

being acceptable for this purpose; or- A site which has been determined by a SQEP to have had no known history of

potentially contaminating activities, as detailed on the MfE’s HAIL; or- A site which has been adequately investigated by a SQEP, in accordance with

Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.5 - Site Investigation and Analysis ofSoils, (Ministry for the Environment, revised 2011) to meet the ‘cleanfill material’definition as prescribed by the AUP. This shall include:o Sampling at a rate of 1 sample for every 500 m3; ando Testing for metals and PAH, depending on the land use at the material’s source,

testing for OCPs and asbestos content may also be required.- It is preferable that the fill is tested at its source prior to its use at the site. However, if

not, then the Contractor shall stockpile the fill on site until test results are available.

24


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

9 Monitoring during the works

9.1 Access requirements

The servants or agents of the Auckland Council shall be permitted access to the relevant parts of thesite, records, monitoring and test results at all reasonable times.

9.2 General monitoring

Records shall be maintained including the following information:

· Weather conditions;· Use of personnel protective equipment relating to ground contamination;· Monitoring data;· Safety, health and environmental discussions (including Toolbox meetings) and safety non-

compliance issues relating to ground contamination;· Third party complaints lodged regarding the works, as well as all corrective measures

implemented to limit such complaints from recurring; and· All incidents and near misses related to ground contamination.

9.3 Water quality monitoring

As the reclamation fill materials may contain contaminants that could affect surface water qualityconfirmation of the quality of any effluent generated from the site shall be confirmed prior todischarge. Proof of performance monitoring shall be conducted as follows:

1. All water is to either be contained on site or collected for off-site disposal to an appropriatelylicensed facility during the proof of performance monitoring period;

2. Samples of effluent are to be collected by the Contaminated Land Specialist from the outlet ofthe stormwater treatment system on a daily basis for 3 consecutive days;

3. Following collection the samples shall be submitted to an IANZ accredited laboratory foranalysis for pH, TSS, metals and PAHs;

4. The Contaminated Land Specialist shall compare the averaged results to the Australian andNew Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC) Guidelines (2000) Table3.4.1 ‘Trigger values for toxicants at alternative levels of protection’ for marine water (whereavailable) at the level of protection of 80 percent of species.

5. If the average results obtained over the 3 day period comply with the respective ANZECCcriteria discharges to stormwater network can commence; OR

6. Where the average effluent concentrations do not comply with the above criteria thecontingency measures defined in Section 10.8 shall be implemented.

For discharges to the stormwater network ongoing monitoring shall be conducted as follows:

1. Samples of effluent are to be collected from the outlet of the stormwater treatment systemon a weekly basis (provided discharges are occurring) during the period thatexcavation/ground disturbance works are being conducted;

2. Following collection the samples shall be submitted to an IANZ accredited laboratory foranalysis for pH, TSS, metals and PAHs;

3. The results shall be compared to the ANZECC Guidelines (at 80% level of protection withappropriate allowance for dilution) within 1 working day of receipt of the results from thelaboratory; and

25


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

4. If the effluent concentrations do not comply with the above criteria the contingency measuresdefined in Section 9.8 shall be implemented immediately.

For discharges being conducted under contingency measures ongoing monitoring shall be conductedin accordance with the applicable permit conditions, e.g. trade waste permit requirements.

9.4 Erosion and sediment controls

Monitoring shall be undertaken by the Contractor and shall involve regular inspections of theearthworks areas for:

· Sediment control;· Water accumulation; and· Dust generation.

The Contractor shall also visually inspect excavations for significant odours or discolouration andnotify Auckland Transport’s project manager if any are observed.

Generally, inspections shall be carried out at least once daily, however, the frequency will bedependent on the nature of the works being undertaken and the area of works. The Contractor shallcarry out all maintenance requirements to ensure the effectiveness of the control measures if theinspections show that this is required.

9.5 Dust monitoring

The simple observation of visible dust shall be adopted as a means of determining when some formof dust suppression is required. Contingency measures for dust control are defined in Section 10.6.

9.6 Spoil and Fill Monitoring

The Contractor shall obtain prior approval of acceptance of materials from the disposal site operator(s)prior to disposal of any soils from site. In addition, approval of any fill or soils required to be importedto the site may also be required (refer to Section 8.8).

Additional testing of materials may be required, as described in Section 8.2 and 8.8. The followingprocedures set out the sampling and testing requirements for any additional sampling requiredduring the course of the works.

9.6.1 Soil sampling procedures

If soil sampling is required, it shall be undertaken under the supervision of the Contaminated LandSpecialist according to the requirements of the NES (Soil), the MfE Contaminated Land ManagementGuidelines No.5 and Asbestos in Soils Guidelines. Soil samples shall be collected according to thefollowing procedure:

· Samples of material to be disposed shall be collected at a rate of at least one sample for every500 m3 (or alternative rate as agreed with the disposal site operator). Where samples arebeing collected from stockpiled soil they can be made up of a composite of up to 4 samplescollected from stockpiled soil;

· The materials encountered shall be described in accordance with the NZ Geotechnical Society“Guidelines for the classification and field description of soils and rocks for engineeringpurposes”;

· Freshly gloved hands shall be used to collect soil and the samples shall be placed immediatelyinto the appropriate laboratory supplied sample containers;

26


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

· Any equipment used to collect the samples shall be decontaminated between samplelocations; and

· Samples shall be shipped (in chilled containers where testing for organic compounds) to anIANZ certified laboratory under chain of custody documentation.

9.6.2 Laboratory testing requirements

The Contaminated Land Specialist shall identify potential contaminants on the basis of visual andolfactory observations and review of existing data (where relevant). However, at a minimum theyshall include heavy metals, PAHs and asbestos.

9.6.3 Reporting and data evaluation

The Contaminated Land Specialist shall evaluate any analytical results against soil contaminantstandards adopted in accordance with the NES Soil and permitted activity requirements set out inAUP.

9.7 Record keeping

The landfill waste disposal acceptance receipts, and associated laboratory analysis (if any), are to beprovided to Auckland Council on completion of earthworks (refer to Section 10).

27


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

10 Contingency measures

The following actions are proposed in the event that unexpected conditions are encountered,discharges occur and/or complaints are received in relation to the works. Mitigation measuresshould be applied in accordance with the hierarchy of control – eliminate, isolate and minimise.

10.1 Roles and responsibilities

As described in Section 4, except where otherwise noted, the Contractor shall be responsible forimplementation of all aspects of this SMP. The Contractor’s site supervisor shall be authorised toenact contingency and emergency measures without delay.

10.2 Emergency response procedures

Should an incident occur on site which may result in any unauthorised discharges (vapour, odour,water, soil, SPH etc.), the Contractor’s site supervisor will take control of the situation andcoordinate the efforts of all on site to minimise the impact. Ultimately, in the event, albeit unlikely,that sustained and uncontrollable discharges (exceeding the specified action levels) occur from thesite, emergency response and evacuation procedures, including provisions for notifying andmanaging neighbouring site users, shall be implemented. The emergency response and evacuationprocedures shall be specified in the project specific health and safety plan.

10.3 Contact with contaminated materials

The personnel decontamination procedures described in Section 8.7 shall be implementedimmediately in the event of any body parts coming in direct contact with any soil and / orgroundwater at any time during the works.

Records shall be kept of any uncontrolled contact with potentially contaminated materials,including: name(s) and contact details of all persons exposed; the nature of the contact (time,duration etc.); decontamination undertaken; and any other treatment given etc.

Medical advice shall be sought immediately if any adverse health effects develop at the time of orfollowing exposure.

10.4 Complaints procedure

A written record of all complaints received shall be maintained. The Contractor’s site supervisor shallinitiate an investigation and notify Auckland Council as soon as practicable on receipt of a complaint,including providing details of any corrective actions taken.

Appropriate feedback will be provided to the complainant, such as the response made and anycorrective actions taken, in response to the complaint.

10.5 Notification requirements

Auckland Transport’s project manager shall be notified immediately in the event that anycontingency measures are required to be implemented.

Auckland Council shall be notified in writing as soon as practicable in the event of receiving anycomplaints.

10.6 Dust exposures

The following hierarchy of actions is proposed in the event that dust discharges occur from theworks:

28


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

1. As described in Section 7.1, the wearing of dust masks shall be implemented in the event thatvisible dust is generated. If dusts are discharging beyond the boundary of the work area thefollowing actions shall be implemented immediately;

2. Increase wetting of the exposed materials until discharges are mitigated. Consider employingautomated suppression systems if problems are recurring; and

3. Cover or temporarily backfill excavations to address discharges while alternative mitigationmeasures are implemented. Alternative mitigation measures may start with revisingoperational procedures, for example significantly reducing open areas in conjunction with thecontrols described above. However, if the discharges persist, professional advice should besought in order to define appropriate control measures. It is recommended that consultationwith appropriate council representatives also be undertaken prior to recommencing works.

10.7 Odour exposures

The following hierarchy of actions is proposed in the event that odour discharges occur from theworks:

1. As described in Section 10.6, increase wetting of the exposed materials by use of water cartsor hand held hoses etc.;

2. Minimising the open areas of excavations as much as practicable, including whenever possiblecovering or temporarily backfilling excavations when not excavating;

If these measures do not address odour discharges the works, in the area of odour discharges, shallbe suspended, if possible the exposed soils covered, and the Contaminated Land Specialist consultedto define appropriate control measures.

10.8 Water discharges

As described in Section 8.3.2, where the quality of water being discharged from the site cannot meetthe standards required for discharge to stormwater, or unexpected contamination conditions areencountered (refer to Section 10.9), additional controls will be required.

If unexpected contamination conditions are encountered the following controls shall beimplemented:

· The area in which unexpected contamination conditions have been encountered shall beisolated so that stormwater from this area can be separated from that generated across thewider site;

· If dewatering is required to continue from the area in which unexpected contaminationconditions have been encountered then the effluent should either be contained for testingprior to disposal, or one of the following options could be implemented; and

· The procedures described in Section 10.9 shall be implemented.

A number of options could be employed if the quality of water being discharged from the site cannotmeet the standards required for discharge to stormwater on an ongoing basis, including, but notlimited to:

1. Collection and discharge to an appropriately designed soakage system within the site; and/or2. Improving effluent quality through additional treatment; and/or3. Collection (for example by tanker trucks) for off-site disposal to an appropriately licensed

facility; and/or4. Discharge to sewer, subject to removal of sediment and issue of any necessary temporary

trade waste permits. However, diversion to tradewaste cannot be assumed to be available.

29


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

The Contaminated Land Specialist consulted to assist with defining appropriate control measures inthe event that the standards required for discharge to stormwater cannot be met.

10.9 Unexpected contamination conditions

Available data indicate that the key contaminants onsite are metals and PAH. Metals will exhibitlittle or no indication of their presence, while TPH and PAH contaminated soil may contain a slightheavy end hydrocarbon odour and possibly darker discolouration. However, the presence of higherconcentrations of contamination and/or other contaminants, albeit likely localised, cannot beexcluded at this time. Typical indicators of contamination include:

· Odour (petroleum hydrocarbons, oil);· Discoloured soil (black, green or blue staining most common);· Asbestos-containing materials (ACM); and· Inclusions of deleterious materials such as demolition wastes, refuse etc.

The notification process described in Section 5.1 shall be followed, including seeking advice from theContaminated Land Specialist, should evidence of unexpected contamination be encountered duringthe works onsite. Specific procedures relating to the identification ACM are provided in Section10.10.

The presence of contaminants in high concentrations, or other unexpected contaminants, maydictate further controls be implemented and additional or different containment/disposal berequired. As the site will be fully sealed by new pavement on completion of the works it isconsidered unlikely that additional remediation would be required to address the presence of non-volatile contamination. However, should testing indicate that unexpected contamination conditionsmay present an ongoing risk to human health or the environment a remediation strategy will bedeveloped by the Contaminated Land Specialist, in consultation with Auckland Transport and itsContractor. It is anticipated that over excavation and removal of contamination to an appropriateoffsite disposal facility will provide the most likely method for addressing localised hotspots ofunexpected contaminants. However the final remedial strategy will be dependent on factors such asthe nature and extent of the contaminants encountered and implications for the building design andconstruction works.

Validation samples shall be collected as appropriate to adequately demonstrate that nounacceptable risks to human health or the environment remain at the completion of any remedialworks.

10.10 Unexpected asbestos management procedures

As described in the preceding sections it is possible that fibres or fragments may have been releasedto ground around existing infrastructure constructed from ACM or included in more recently placefill, such as demolition debris. The procedures set out in this section are required to beimplemented, in addition to those set out in the remainder of the SMP, during ground disturbanceworks in any area(s) of the site where ACM is identified (e.g. below ground infrastructure) orsuspected (e.g. based on observation of demolition debris) to be present in ground.

Additional controls may also be required for works involving structures/buildings that include ACM,such works are beyond the scope of this SMP. The contractor shall seek advice from a LicensedAsbestos Removalist.

In addition, in accordance with Regulations 13 and 32 of the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos)Regulations 2016 (Asbestos Regulations), an Asbestos Management Plan and/or Asbestos RemovalControl Plan may be required to be prepared in addition to this SMP.

30


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

10.10.1 Determination of level of control required

In order to help achieve compliance with the Asbestos Regulations, WorkSafe New Zealand hasprepared an Approved Code of Practice: Management and Removal of Asbestos (September 2016).The key requirements of the regulations and ACoP are that works involving asbestos contaminatedsoils must be undertaken with appropriate asbestos controls in place and that contaminated soilremoved from site must be taken to an approved disposal site. The ACoP refers readers to theAsbestos in Soils Guidelines, which were published in November 2017 by BRANZ Ltd, for furtherguidance.

The Asbestos in Soils Guidelines apply increasing level of oversight and controls as the concentrationof asbestos in soil increases. As the concentration of asbestos in soil (if any) will not be known in theevent of unexpected encounters the following is proposed:

1 The Contaminated Land Specialist shall inspect the work area and review the proposed worksagainst the observed asbestos conditions, including any available soil testing data andasbestos condition surveys of any nearby structures, to assess the potential effects of asbestosin soils.

2 If the above assessment indicates that it is possible that asbestos in soil will be encountered atconcentrations exceeding the relevant standards for commercial/industrial use defined in theAsbestos in Soils Guidelines soil sampling shall be undertaken in accordance with theprocedures set out in Section 9.6.1.

3 If the soil sampling results indicate (based on comparison to the requirements of the Asbestosin Soils Guidelines) that the works need to be undertaken as Class A or Class B works(generally only where high concentrations of fibres or fragments are present), AucklandTransport shall engage the services of a Licensed Asbestos Removalist.

4 The Licensed Asbestos Removalist shall determine what notification and additional asbestosmanagement controls may be required to supplement the procedures set out in this SMP,including the requirement for an asbestos removal control plan.

The following procedures provide guidance on anticipated asbestos controls, however, for Class A orClass B works the appropriateness of these procedures are to be confirmed by the Licensed AsbestosRemovalist in consultation with the Contaminated Land Specialist.

10.10.2 Air monitoring

If the soil sampling results indicate (based on comparison to the requirements of the Asbestos inSoils Guidelines) that the works need to be undertaken as Class A works then air monitoring shall beimplemented. Monitoring requirements shall be determined by the Contaminated Land Specialist8 oran independent licensed asbestos assessor, in accordance with the requirements of the regulationsand ACoP. Air monitoring is not required for lower classes of asbestos removal works. However, isrecommended where the works are proposed to be undertaken in or near sensitive locations, suchas playgrounds etc.

10.10.3 Establishment of asbestos work area

In addition to the general site establishment requirements set out in this SMP (refer to Section 6) thefollowing shall be established prior to commencement of any asbestos works:

8 Where is person/entity fulfils the requirements for an independent licensed asbestos assessor as specified by theAsbestos Regulations.

31


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

· Establishment of the ‘asbestos work area’ by fencing and appropriate signage, including dustbarriers/scrim where necessary. The controls should be sufficient to prevent accidental accessto or trafficking across this area.

· Establishment of an access way to the ‘asbestos work area’.· Establishment of a truck loading area and decontamination area (refer to Section 10.10.6)

adjacent to ‘asbestos work area’, to prevent machinery and trucks from trafficking asbestoscontaminated soils outside the ‘asbestos work area’ and contaminating otherwise asbestosfree materials. These controls are additional to those set out in Sections 6 and 8.

· Permits for disposal of asbestos-contaminated soil shall be obtained from the selecteddisposal site(s), if required.

· Provision of PPE including P2 dust masks (as a minimum), disposable or dedicated clothoveralls, and disposable gloves (refer to Section 10.10.4).

· Health and safety inductions are to be completed prior to allowing workers to operate withinthe ‘asbestos work area’, including works required as part of the site establishment.

· Notification to Auckland Council and WorkSafe of the intent to commence works.

10.10.4 Personal protective equipment

Personal protective equipment shall comply with the requirements set out in the Asbestos in SoilsGuidelines (refer to Table 6 of the document). However, as a minimum, workers undertakingdisturbance of soil shall:

· Wear respiratory protection during excavation works. The minimum respiratory protectionrequirement is a P2 dust mask;

· Wear Tyvek overalls to prevent asbestos fibres collecting within the folds of clothing; and· Boot covers shall be used to prevent asbestos fibres being tracked outside the works area on

the soles of workers/visitors boots, or alternatively a boot wash shall be established at theentrance to the works area.

These requirements shall be confirmed by soil sampling.

10.10.5 Segregation

Any spoil removed from the ‘asbestos work area’ must be kept separate from all other excavatedsoils to prevent cross contamination. It is preferable that the soil be excavated directly onto trucksfor removal however if stockpiling is required the following apply:

· Soils containing asbestos contaminated soils must be placed in a fenced area and warningsigns erected;

· Contaminated soil stockpiles shall be placed on sheeting or similar to prevent contaminationof underlying clean material; and

· The stockpiled shall be covered with geotextile or a polythene cover to prevent rainfallinduced erosion and dust.

10.10.6 Decontamination

Decontamination of personnel and portable equipment must be carried out to reduce safety, healthand environmental risks and limit the migration of contaminants (from waste material, soil, water,equipment and PPE) around, and outside, the site. All personnel and equipment involved in groundbreaking activities within the asbestos work area must be thoroughly decontaminated before leavingthe area.

32


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Decontamination procedures shall comply with the requirements set out in the Asbestos in SoilsGuidelines (refer to Table 6 and 7 of the document). As a minimum the decontamination proceduresdescribed in Section 8.7 shall be implemented. In addition, works involving asbestos may require:

· A personnel decontamination unit(s) to be available; and· Wash down water and sediment to be collected for treatment. Alternatively runoff from

equipment wash down may be allowed to collect on a layer of non-woven geotextile fabric,the fabric can then be rolled up for disposal.

10.10.7 Spoil management

If the asbestos contaminated spoil is to remain on site it shall either be encapsulated beneath hardpavement (concrete or asphalt) or the following to prevent direct contact:

· Installation of a physical barrier comprising Bidim A19 or similar (non-woven geotextile). Thebidim shall extend at least 1 m over adjacent ground and shall be anchored with steel pinsevery 2 m spacing. Where joints are required, a minimum of 500 mm overlap is proposed.

· Installation of geogrid (Fortrac type 55 or similar) across the same area, to prevent the bidimfrom being cut into in future. This needs to be pinned in place as well.

· Cover with a minimum 300 mm thickness of cleanfill (refer Section 8.8 for criteria for importedmaterial).

In all cases the location of the encapsulation area shall be recorded by survey and incorporated intothis SMP and/or any Asbestos Management Plan implemented for the area.

If the spoil is to be removed, it must be disposed to a facility licensed to receive the appropriate levelof asbestos contaminated waste as shown on Table 8.1.

10.10.8 Validation

Validation requirements (if any) shall be determined by the Contaminated Land Specialist inconsideration of the relevant MfE Contaminated Land Guidelines and Asbestos in Soils Guidelines (asappropriate). Further detail with respect to validation and reporting requirements is provided inSection 11.

33


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

11 Reporting and validation

11.1 Validation

Given the low concentrations of contamination anticipated to be present at this site and the limitedpotential for exposure to any residual contamination following completion of the works, it isproposed that soil validation samples will not be required to be collected except where unexpectedcontamination conditions are encountered and remediated (refer to Sections 10.9 and 10.10). Asdescribed in Section 10.9 and 10.10, in these instances the appointed Contaminated Land Specialistshall inspect the material and provide additional advice on the collection of any validation samples.

If undertaken, validation sampling shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified Contaminated LandSpecialist in accordance with the procedures described in Section 9.6.

11.2 Information required from the Contractor

The following information is required from the Contractor for inclusion in project reporting:

· Copies of weigh bridge summaries for the disposal destination for all contaminated materials;· Documentation confirming the source, and where necessary testing (refer to Section 8.8), of

any fill or soils imported during works;· Records of visits by council representatives;· Details of any complaints;· Details of any health and safety incident related to the contamination and how they were

resolved; and· Details of unexpected encounters/events and the action taken.

The Contractor shall provide the required information within 1 month of completion of the works towhich the information relates.

11.3 Reporting

On completion of the soil disturbing works, a letter shall be provided to Auckland Councilincorporating the following:

· Confirmation that the soil disturbance works are complete;· Confirmation that soil disturbance works were completed according to this SMP and that

there were no variations during the works; If there were variations the then the letter shalldetail the nature of the variations and the measures taken to mitigate effects;

· Confirmation that there were no environmental incidents during the works. If there was anenvironmental incident, then the letter shall detail the nature of the incident and themeasures taken to mitigate effects;

· Documentation confirming the source, and where necessary testing (refer to Section 8.8), ofany fill or soils imported during works;

· Copies of laboratory report for any soil contamination testing undertaken during the works;and

· Confirmation of the disposal destination(s) of all spoil and the verification test resultsundertaken (where required) for disposal permitting.

If the asbestos management procedures set out in Section 10.10 are required to be implementedduring the works additional clearance reporting to WorkSafe maybe necessary to comply with the

34


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

Asbestos Regulations. Clearance reporting requirements shall be determined by the ContaminatedLand Specialist.

35


June 2018Job No: 1004393.0000.v4

12 Applicability

The provisions of this SMP are mandatory for all persons (employees, contractor and sub-contractors) who will be involved in undertaking ground disturbance works on the site.

This SMP provides a framework for managing contamination hazards on site (defined in Section 3.4)by identifying potential hazards and suggesting mitigation measures relevant to site conditions andworks proposed at the time of writing. This SMP provides information and recommendations toaugment this process but is not intended to relieve the person conducting a business or undertaking(PCBU, previously referred to as the controller of the place of work) of either their responsibility forthe health and safety of their workers, contractors and the public, or their responsibility forprotection of the environment.

Any persons undertaking ground disturbance works on the site should develop a site-specific riskassessment (such as a job safety analysis (JSA), or similar) to complement this SMP and to addressother health and safety requirements that may be applicable to their particular works. The site-specific risk assessment should also be modified to address any specific health, safety orenvironmental issues that may arise during the works.

From time to time, statutory requirements, site ownership or occupation, operating procedures orsite conditions may vary requiring that this plan be amended or updated.

The plan has been prepared on the basis of information available at the date of preparation (refer toSection 2). The nature and continuity of subsoil away from sample locations are inferred and it mustbe appreciated that actual conditions could vary from the assumed model.

This report has been prepared for the benefit of Auckland Transport with respect to the particularbrief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose withoutour prior review and agreement.

Report certified by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner as prescribed under the NES(Soil).

Tonkin & Taylor LtdEnvironmental and Engineering Consultants

Report prepared by: Report reviewed by:

.......................................................... ...........................….......…...............

Shane Moore Lean PhuahPrincipal Environmental Scientist Principal Environmental Engineer

Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

..........................................................

Richard Reinen-HamillProject Director

p:\1004393\issueddocuments\contamination\1004393_smp_for_ ground_contamination.v4.docx

Appendix A: Drawings



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-101.dw

g, 101, 12/04/2018 1:12:51 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-102.dw

g, 102, 12/04/2018 1:12:57 p.m

., bli

MEFF

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18

12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-103.dw

g, 103, 12/04/2018 1:13:07 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-115.dw

g, 115, 12/04/2018 1:13:36 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-123.dw

g, 123, 12/04/2018 1:16:11 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-135.dw

g, 135, 12/04/2018 3:49:31 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-163_164.dw

g, 163, 12/04/2018 1:20:25 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-163_164.dw

g, 164, 12/04/2018 1:20:32 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-175_176.dw

g, 175, 12/04/2018 3:42:57 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1004393\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1004393-175_176.dw

g, 176, 12/04/2018 3:43:11 p.m

., bli

MEFF 12/04/18

MEFF 12/04/18

RBS 12/04/18

Documents

By email Response to section 92 request for further ... · Seawall Project, a similar condition with slightly varied wording could be applied to the Ferry Basin and Queens Wharf to