The document is an environmental impact assessment report for a proposed concrete batching plant. It finds that the plant could generate noise, traffic, and waste impacts requiring further analysis. Noise from equipment on site and trucks could exceed criteria at nearby residential receivers. Traffic from daily truck movements may impact local roads. The plant would produce wastewater and solid waste requiring proper management. The report evaluates these impacts and considers alternative technologies, sites, and recommendations to improve environmental outcomes.

1.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
CONCRETE
BATCHING
PLANT
JUNE
1,
2016
GROUP
40
Elliot
Gorman
Peter
Pham
Katherine
Rose
Schwartz
Andy
Van

2. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
1
Contents
1.
Brief
Background
&
Site
Description
..............................................................................................
2
2.
Project
Impacts
...............................................................................................................................
2
3.
Significant
Impacts
.........................................................................................................................
3
3.1
Noise
.............................................................................................................................................
3
3.1.1
Noise
criteria
.........................................................................................................................
3
3.1.2
Quantifying
Noise
..................................................................................................................
3
3.1.3
Noise
Contribution
from
Agitator
Trucks
..............................................................................
4
3.2
Traffic
...........................................................................................................................................
5
3.2.1
Victoria
St
..............................................................................................................................
5
3.2.2
Frank
St
..................................................................................................................................
5
3.3
Waste
...........................................................................................................................................
6
4.
Community
Consultation
................................................................................................................
7
5.
Alternative
Technologies
................................................................................................................
7
6.
Alternative
Sites
.............................................................................................................................
8
6.1
Criteria
......................................................................................................................................
8
6.2
Suggested
Site
..........................................................................................................................
8
6.3
Alternative
Site
1:
St
Marys
......................................................................................................
8
6.4
Alternative
Site
2:
Yennora
.......................................................................................................
9
7.
Recommendation
...........................................................................................................................
9
8.
Reflections
on
EIA
.........................................................................................................................
10
8.1
Strengths
of
EIA
..........................................................................................................................
10
8.2
Flaws
of
EIA
................................................................................................................................
10
8.3
Improvements
............................................................................................................................
10
9.
Reference
.....................................................................................................................................
11
10.
Appendix
..................................................................................................................................
12
Appendix
A:
Calculation
of
source
noise
..........................................................................................
12
Appendix
B:
Calculation
of
agitator
truck
noise
...............................................................................
12
B1:
Victoria
St
(Reference
AB)
......................................................................................................
12
B2:
Frank
St
(Reference
AC)
.........................................................................................................
12
Appendix
C:
Calculation
of
traffic
volume
........................................................................................
12
C1:
Victoria
St
...............................................................................................................................
12
C2:
Frank
St
..................................................................................................................................
13
Appendix
D:
Calculation
of
slurry
waste
..........................................................................................
13
Appendix
E:
Calculation
of
water
waste
...........................................................................................
13

3. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
2
1. Brief
Background
&
Site
Description
The
Development
project
proposed
is
a
concrete
batching
plant
situated
at
376-­‐384
Victoria
St,
Wetherill
Park
(Fairfield
City
Council).
The
site
is
between
Frank
Street
and
Victoria
Street,
and
just
East
of
Elizabeth
Street.
Wetherill
Park
It
lies
34
km
west
of
Sydney’s
central
business
district
and
has
a
high
proportion
of
immigrants.
The
majority
of
the
suburb
is
an
industrial
area
with
6,026
people
living
in
the
southeast
sector.
The
northern
edge
of
the
suburb
lies
along
the
Prospect
Nature
Reserve.
The
suggested
site
has
a
total
area
of
115,000
m2
and
lies
in
the
largest
industrial
area
in
the
southern
hemisphere.
The
purpose
of
the
batching
plant
will
be
to
serve
the
needs
of
local
contractors
with
a
supply
of
50,000m3
of
concrete
per
annum
with
190
trucks
accessing
the
site
daily. The
site
will
employ
8
people
and
will
operate
24/7
under
the
provision
that
noise
and
traffic
regulations
are
satisfied.
2. Project
Impacts
A
concrete
batching
plant
combines
various
ingredients
to
produce
concrete:
calcium,
silica,
alumina,
magnesia,
iron
oxide,
sulfur
dioxide
compounds,
fly
ash,
aggregates,
and
admixtures.
Poorly
monitored
batching
plants
have
the
potential
to
release
highly
alkaline
wastewater,
dust,
excess
noise
and
other
impacts
outlined
in
table
2.1.
Traffic
and
parking
assessment,
air
quality
assessment,
a
surface
water
management
plan,
a
waste
management
plan,
and
an
environmental
noise
assessment
need
to
be
assessed
and
analysed.
Figure
1.1:
Aerial
map
view
of
site
Table
2.1:
Impact
Analysis
Table

4. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
3
3. Significant
Impacts
3.1
Noise
3.1.1
Noise
criteria
The
project
noise
criterion
has
been
set
out
by
the
NSW
Industrial
Noise
Policy
1999.
The
standard
and
non-­‐standard
operating
hours
were
determined
by
adding
+5dBA
and
+10dBA
to
background
noise,
respectively
(Table
3.1.1).
For
the
proposed
development,
background
noise
was
assumed
since
no
data
exists
for
the
site.
3.1.2
Quantifying
Noise
The
site
is
located
in
an
industrial
zone
within
Wetherill
Park,
where
the
closest
sensitive
receiver
is
located
in
a
residential
region
(R1),
approximately
660m
away,
as
determined
by
Google
Maps.
Sound
levels
for
multiple
locations
were
also
determined,
including
a
commercial
hub,
C1,
and
immediate
industrial
neighbours,
I1
(Figure
3.1.2).
Table
3.1.1:
Project
Noise
Criterion
Figure
3.1.2:
Receiver
locations
(blue)
from
the
centre
of
the
site
(red).
Also
illustrated
are
road
distances
between
Victoria
St
and
Frank
St
from
receiver
at
A
(black).

5. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
4
To
quantify
the
noise
levels,
sound
pressure
levels
from
a
similar
development
by
Holcim,
Perth,
were
used
to
determine
the
site
noise
(URS
2012).
Holcim
measured
the
sound
pressure
level
from
the
slumping
and
loading
processes
of
three
agitator
trucks
simultaneously,
measuring
a
sound
pressure
level
of
approximately
55dBA
at
100
metres.
Operating
sound
pressure
level
at
10
metres
was
back
calculated
to
be
75dBA
(Ref.
Appendix
A).
All
locations
were
found
to
comply
with
the
noise
criterion
as
determined
in
section
3.1.1
(Table
3.1.3).
3.1.3
Noise
Contribution
from
Agitator
Trucks
To
determine
suitable
road
noise,
sound
pressure
levels
for
a
single
agitator
truck
(AS2436-­‐2010
Table
A.1)
was
used
to
calculate
the
noise
level
between
Victoria
Street
and
Frank
Street,
and
the
residential
receiver
(Figure
3.1.2).
Trucks
utilising
Victoria
Street
do
not
comply
with
the
residential
sound
limit
of
50dBA
(Table
3.1.4).
Comparatively,
trucks
utilising
Frank
Street
produced
sound
levels
below
the
lowest
limit
of
45dBA
for
non-­‐standard
operating
hours
(Ref.
Appendix
B).
This
indicates
24-­‐hour
operation
may
be
possible
if
trucks
are
directed
to
Frank
Street
during
non-­‐
standard
hours.
However,
despite
satisfying
the
noise
criterion,
sound
pressure
levels
were
only
marginally
lower,
and
noise
mitigation
should
still
be
considered.
Hoppers,
silos
and
conveyors
should
be
lined
with
sound-­‐deadening
material,
compressors
and
pumps
should
be
concealed,
and
fine
aggregates
should
be
weighed
first.
Table
3.1.3.
Sound
Pressure
Level
of
Receivers
Table
3.1.4.
Sound
pressure
levels
of
Victoria
Street
and
Frank
Street
from
a
receiver
in
the
residential
region.

6. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
5
3.2
Traffic
3.2.1
Victoria
St
The
site
has
access
to
two
roads.
The
southern
road,
Victoria
Street,
is
a
4-­‐lane
undivided
road
with
bus
lanes
either
side.
To
quantify
the
road
system,
the
Road
and
Maritime
Services
traffic
volume
data
was
utilized
to
determine
vehicle
counts
during
peak
hour
(RMS
2016).
Approximately
875
vehicles
travelled
in
the
eastern
direction
every
hour,
where
10%
was
assumed
to
consist
of
heavy
vehicles
equivalent
to
3.5pcu/hr.
The
addition
of
16
agitator
trucks
yields
a
total
traffic
volume
of
1152pcu/hr
(Ref.
Appendix
C1),
which
is
well
below
the
capacity
of
Victoria
Street
as
determined
in
Table
4.3
of
the
RTA
Guide
to
Traffic
Generating
Developments.
3.2.2
Frank
St
The
northern
road,
Frank
Street,
is
a
single-­‐laned
road
with
adjacent
parking,
corresponding
to
a
capacity
of
900pcu/hr
(RTA
2002).
Since
traffic
data
was
not
available,
an
estimation
based
on
the
gross
floor
area
was
used,
yielding
a
volume
of
345
vehicles
per
hour
during
peak
periods.
Similarly,
the
addition
of
16
trucks
did
not
impact
this
road
system,
producing
a
total
traffic
volume
of
489pcu/hr,
remaining
below
the
roads
capacity
(Ref.
Appendix
C2).
The
proposed
development
should
not
impact
the
road
systems.
Although
Frank
St
is
more
advantageous
during
peak
hours,
manoeuvrability
will
be
limited.
Additionally,
main
roadways
such
as
the
Cumberland
Highway,
Greater
Western
Highway
or
M4,
will
still
be
accessible.
Figure
3.2.1.
Victoria
Street
Entrance
Figure
3.2.2.
Frank
Street
Entrance

7. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
6
3.3
Waste
The
number
of
waste
streams
identified
for
the
proposed
development
has
been
narrowed
down
to
three
main
concrete
batching
byproducts.
The
first
form
will
be
solid
waste
and
will
generally
be
in
the
form
of
excess
concrete.
The
plant
will
be
producing
specific
volumes
for
contracted
jobs,
therefore,
excess
concrete
waste
will
be
minimal
and
completely
recycled.
All
excess
concrete
will
be
returned
to
the
plant
and
transported
to
licensed
recycling
facilities,
such
as
the
Elizabeth
Drive
Landfill
Facility.
The
second
waste
stream
will
be
washout
slurry.
Boral
Concrete
and
Quarries
Country
Queensland
(BCQCQ)
states
that
approximately
25
tonnes/week
is
produced
for
70
truck
movements
per
day
(Planning
NSW
2003).
Assuming
similarity,
the
amount
of
slurry
produced
from
the
proposed
development
will
be
approximately
68
tonnes/week
or
2.8%
(Ref.
Appendix
D).
This
waste
will
be
sent
to
licensed
recycling
facilities
in
accordance
with
the
POEO
(Waste)
Regulation
2005.
The
final
waste
stream
is
the
amount
of
water
utilized
on
site.
Using
waste
production
from
BCQCQ
(Planning
NSW
2003),
an
estimated
32,000
cubic
metres
of
water
will
be
used,
amounting
to
64.3%
of
the
total
plant
capacity
(Ref.
Appendix
E).
In
addition
to
the
2.8%
contribution
from
slurry,
this
totals
67%
of
the
plant
capacity,
and
is
greater
than
the
63%
target
as
set
out
by
the
Waste
Avoidance
and
Resource
Recovery
Act
2007.
The
proposed
development
has
neglected
to
specify
any
form
of
water
treatments
on-­‐site.
To
comply
with
legislations,
water
treatment
must
be
incorporated,
since
the
largest
contribution
is
from
water.
Facilities
such
as
stormwater
run-­‐off
tanks
and
washout
pits
or
ponds
are
highly
recommended.
Figure
3.3.1
Waste
Treatment
Pyramid

8. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
7
4. Community
Consultation
The
main
stakeholders
for
this
project
are
the
Fairfield
city
council,
New
South
Wales
Environment
Protection
Authority,
and
the
neighbours
in
the
community.
In
order
to
respond
to
the
concerns
of
stakeholders
who
are
adversely
affected
by
or
had
concerns
about
the
project,
we
want
to
bring
a
focus
to
community
involvement
with
the
design/construction
of
this
concrete
batching
plant.
Because
of
this,
it
is
important
to
have
an
interactive
engagement
process
with
the
community
to
work
collaboratively
with
them
to
achieve
a
common
understanding
of
the
happenings
at
the
plant.
In
order
to
facilitate
this
interaction,
we
will
have
two
dialogue
processes
that
reach
out
to
the
entire
community.
The
demographics
of
Fairfield
City
Council
show
that
there
is
an
even
distribution
of
people
aged
above
and
below
40,
and
we
wanted
to
ensure
all
members
of
the
community
have
the
opportunity
to
be
engaged
with
this
project.
The
two
dialogue
processes
we
came
up
with
were
first,
there
will
be
community
meetings
where
members
of
the
community
can
participate
in
a
series
of
2-­‐3
hour
sections
in
a
series
of
consecutive
weeks
while
the
decision-­‐making
process
is
occurring.
In
addition,
we
will
create
an
online
forum
where
community
members
can
find
the
newest
information
on
the
concrete
batching
plant,
participate
in
polls,
and
facilitate
an
online
discussion.
This
method
of
interaction
helps
to
target
and
involve
the
younger
part
of
the
community.
The
community
meetings
will
occur
during
the
initial
decision-­‐making
process;
we
want
this
deliberative
dialogue
to
reach
a
common
ground
for
construction.
Once
we
get
to
the
construction
stage
these
meetings
will
evolve
into
information
sessions
to
keep
the
community
informed
on
what
is
going
at
the
site
and
if
there
are
any
changes
or
new
technologies.
It
is
important
that
we
have
limits
on
what
is
negotiable
between
the
project
and
the
community
members
during
the
weekly
meetings
prior
to
construction.
This
way
we
can
ensure
that
while
the
community
members
have
a
voice,
there
will
not
be
delays
with
the
construction
moving
forward.
5. Alternative
Technologies
Some
alternative
technology
that
will
mitigate
dust
emissions
at
batching
plants
are:
-­‐ Use
chemical
suppressant
products,
or
practice
regular
light
watering
-­‐ The
layout
and
design
of
the
site
itself
will
ideally
minimize
truck
travel
distances
by
putting
truck
and
wash
facilities
near
the
exit
of
the
site
and
maintaining
vehicle
speed
limits
and
regular
sweeping
to
prevent
dust
build
up.
-­‐ As
for
the
aggregate
that
is
stored
on
site
in
stockpiles,
these
should
be
contained
in
storage
bunkers
with
windshields
that
project
above
the
bunker
wall,
and
these
bins
should
be
filled
with
at
least
0.5m
of
room
at
the
top
to
prevent
too
much
blowing
in
the
wind.
-­‐ The
conveyors
should
also
have
design
to
prevent
fugitive
dust
emissions
by
covering
them
with
a
roof
and
installing
side
protection
barriers
and
implementing
spill
trays.
-­‐ Belt
cleaning
devices
can
also
be
installed
to
reduce
spillage.
-­‐ Mixer
loading
areas
should
also
be
roofed
on
either
side.
-­‐ Water
sprays
and
an
air
extraction
and
filtration
system
would
also
minimize
the
dust.
-­‐ Fabric
filters
are
another
alternative
technology
that
can
be
installed
in
storage
silos
so
that
concentration
of
solid
particles
doesn’t
exceed
100
mg.m3
.

9. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
8
6. Alternative
Sites
6.1
Criteria
The
criteria
set
for
choosing
a
site
for
this
project
are:
-­‐ The
site
area
must
be
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
project.
This
includes
sufficient
area
for
the
required
equipment,
office
space
and
storage
warehouse.
-­‐ Any
roads
surrounding
the
site
should
be
low
traffic
and
very
wide.
This
is
to
accommodate
trucks
going
in
and
out
of
the
compound.
The
site
should
also
be
close
to
major
roads,
highways
and
motorways
to
allow
ease
of
transportation
to
and
from
the
site
-­‐ There
should
be
public
transport
available
nearby
for
the
employees
to
commute.
-­‐ The
site
should
be
far
away
from
noise
receivers
and
any
nature
reserves,
parks
and
river
6.2
Suggested
Site
The
suggested
site
at
Wetheril
Park
for
the
concrete
batching
plant
meets
all
the
criteria
set
above.
Therefore
it
is
a
suitable
site
for
the
project.
The
suggested
site
is
large
enough,
with
bus
stop
right
outside
on
Victoria
Street.
Also
all
surrounding
roads
have
low
traffic
and
connect
to
major
highways.
6.3
Alternative
Site
1:
St
Marys
40
Forrester
Rd,
St
Marys
NSW
is
a
candidate
for
an
alternative
site
with
an
area
of
130,000m2
,
with
a
bus
stop
and
train
station
400m
from
the
site.
The
issues
associated
with
this
site
are
noise
and
the
environmental
impacts.
The
nearest
noise
receptor
is
350m
away
and
the
main
route
that
the
trucks
take
to
reach
the
Great
Western
Highway,
via
Glossop
Street,
is
residential
housing
on
one
side.
The
site
is
also
situated
next
to
South
Creek
Park,
with
Whalan
Reserve
1.3km
away.
Therefore
any
air
and
water
pollution
could
affect
the
local
flora
and
fauna
in
the
area.
Figure
6.3.1.
Aerial
map
view
of
St
Marys
Site

10. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
9
6.4
Alternative
Site
2:
Yennora
The
second
alternative
site
is
at
38
Pine
Rd,
Yennora
NSW,
this
site
is
very
similar
to
the
suggested
site.
As
it
is
also
situated
in
an
industrial
estate,
with
a
site
area
of
120,000m2
.
The
nearest
noise
receptor
is
600m
away
and
Fairfield
Road
Park
is
500m
away.
Yennora
train
station
is
500m
away
and
there
is
also
a
freight
train
line
across
the
road,
which
could
be
utilised
to
transport
materials
and
aggregates
to
the
plant.
This
site
is
also
close
to
Horsley
drive,
which
connects
to
the
Cumberland
highway,
M4,
M5
and
M7.
The
only
potential
issue
is
that
there
is
already
an
established
concrete
batching
plant
nearby,
therefore
demand
may
not
be
as
high.
7. Recommendation
It
is
recommended
that
the
project
should
proceed
at
either
the
Wetheril
Park
or
Yennora
site.
As
these
two
sites
satisfy
the
all
of
the
criteria
set
for
choosing
a
site
for
this
project.
But
we
don’t
recommend
the
alternative
site
at
St
Marys
as
it
produces
too
many
issues
in
the
form
of
noise
to
the
local
residents
as
well
as
pollution
to
the
environment
and
the
local
flora
and
fauna.
Figure
6.4.1.
Aerial
map
view
of
Yennora
Site

11. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
10
8. Reflections
on
EIA
The
purpose
of
an
EIA
is
to
identify
the
potential
effects
a
project
may
have
on
its
surrounding
environment
and
determine
a
suitable
site
for
the
project.
The
EIA
process
consists
of:
-­‐ Examining
the
project
proposal
and
its
site
location.
-­‐ Identifying
and
assess
all
impacts
based
on
the
site
location
and
the
surrounding
environment.
-­‐ Identify
any
significant/major
impacts
and
find
ways
of
mitigation
and
management.
-­‐ Consult
with
stakeholders
and
the
local
community
where
the
project
is
to
be
built.
-­‐ Review
all
the
information
obtained
from
the
project
proposal,
site
location,
impact
assessment
and
consultation.
And
determine
if
the
project
proposal
is
suitable
for
the
current
site.
8.1
Strengths
of
EIA
The
strengths
of
an
EIA
include:
-­‐ A
thorough
assessment
of
the
environmental,
social
and
economic
impacts.
-­‐ Incorporates
public
opinion
and
community
consultation,
into
the
project
stages
to
ensure
that
all
stakeholders
associated
are
satisfied
with
the
project.
-­‐ Provides
mitigation
and
management
of
impacts
for
the
project,
to
minimise
the
effect
of
impacts
on
the
surrounding
environment.
8.2
Flaws
of
EIA
The
flaws
of
an
EIA
include:
-­‐ The
EIA
process
is
quite
lengthy
and
will
take
a
lot
of
time
and
dedication
to
complete
properly.
-­‐ EIA
reports
are
generally
quite
long
and
difficult
to
understand
with
a
lot
of
technical
jargon
and
calculations.
8.3
Improvements
Several
improvements
which
could
be
incorporated
into
the
EIA
process
include:
-­‐ Having
a
set
guideline
and
specific
detail
for
what
should
be
included
in
an
EIA.
This
reduces
any
redundant
information
and
ensures
that
lesser
technical
jargon
is
used
to
allow
a
better
understanding.
-­‐ An
online
website,
for
users
to
generate
an
EIA,
with
a
pre-­‐set
template.
This
will
allow
an
EIA
to
be
easily
generated
by
any
user
and
allows
multiple
users
to
work
on
an
EIA
together.

12. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
11
9. Reference
NSW
Industrial
Noise
Policy
1999,
viewed
16
May
2016,
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm/
Planning
NSW,
2003,
Assessment
Report
for
Development
Application
No.
DA-­‐76-­‐2-­‐3003-­‐I
Pursuant
to
Section
80
of
the
Environmental
Planning
and
Assessment
Act,
1979,
Department
of
Urban
and
Transport
Planning,
Sydney,
viewed
17
May
2016,
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=1910/
Protection
of
the
Environment
Operations
Act
1997,
viewed
15
May
2016,
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/legislation/actsummaries.htm/
Protection
of
the
Environment
Operations
(Waste)
Regulation
2005,
viewed
16
May
2016,
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/15937bef-­‐eef8-­‐c8ed-­‐d2c1-­‐dd4c148cc79c/2005-­‐497.pdf/
Roads
and
Maritime
Services,
Traffic
Volume
Viewer,
2016.
RMS,
New
South
Wales,
viewed
17
May
2016,
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/about/corporate-­‐publications/statistics/traffic-­‐
volumes/index.html/
RTA
Guide
to
Traffic
Generating
Developments
2002,
viewed
15
May
2016,
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/guide-­‐to-­‐generating-­‐traffic-­‐developments.pdf/
Standards
Australia
2010,
Australian
Standard
AS2436:
Guide
to
noise
and
vibration
control
on
construction,
demolition
and
maintenance
sites,
Standards
Australia,
Sydney.
URS
2012,
Report:
Environmental
Management
Plan
East
Perth
Concrete
Batching
Plant,
URS
Australia
Pty
Limited,
Western
Australia,
viewed
17
May
2016,
http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/files/bbf31579-­‐9249-­‐4ed5-­‐8e79-­‐
a166010d828c/tesg0276r6_east_perth_cbp_emp.pdf/
Waste
Avoidance
and
Resource
Recovery
2007,
viewed
17
May
2016,
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/wastestrategy/070226-­‐WARR-­‐report07.pdf/
NSW
Department
of
Planning
&
Environment,
Environmental
Impact
Assessments
2016,
viewed
20
May
16,
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/lodge-­‐track-­‐applications/lodge-­‐your-­‐application-­‐
or-­‐certificate/lodge-­‐your-­‐application-­‐department/environmental-­‐impact-­‐assessment
Australian
Government:
Department
of
Environment,
Environmental
Assessments
2016,
viewed
20
May
2016,
https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-­‐assessments
Environmental
Protection
Authority,
EIA
Process
2016,
viewed
20
May
2016,
http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/eia/assessdev/Pages/default.aspx

13. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
12
10. Appendix
Appendix
A:
Calculation
of
source
noise
The
noise
level
at
a
distance
𝑅#,
from
the
receiver,
𝑅$,
can
be
calculated
as
follows.
𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝐿 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙
𝑆𝑃𝐿 = 𝑆𝑃𝐿2 − 10 log
𝑅$
#
𝑅#
#
Where,
𝑆𝑃𝐿2 = 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
𝑝 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙
𝑎 𝑡
𝑎
𝑘 𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛
𝑙 𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑅$ = 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒
𝑟 𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑝 𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡
𝑅# = 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑜 𝑓
𝑘 𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛
𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
𝑝 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
Therefore,
using
an
estimated
sound
pressure
level
of
55
dBA
at
100
metres
(Holcim),
the
source
sound
pressure
at
10
metres
from
the
site
can
be
calculated
as:
𝑆𝑃𝐿$A = 55 − 10 log
10#
100#
= 75
𝑑 𝐵𝐴
Appendix
B:
Calculation
of
agitator
truck
noise
B1:
Victoria
St
(Reference
AB)
Taking
𝑆 𝑃𝐿2 = 76
𝑑 𝐵𝐴
at
10
m
for
a
single
agitator
truck
(AS2436-­‐2010
Table
A.1)
𝑆𝑃𝐿GH = 76 − 10 log
170#
10#
= 51.39
𝑑 𝐵𝐴
>
50
𝑑 𝐵𝐴
B2:
Frank
St
(Reference
AC)
Similarly,
using
an
𝑆 𝑃𝐿2 = 76
𝑑 𝐵𝐴.
𝑆𝑃𝐿GM = 76 − 10 log
700#
10#
= 39.1
<
45
𝑑 𝐵𝐴
Appendix
C:
Calculation
of
traffic
volume
C1:
Victoria
St
From
Table
4.3
of
the
RTA
Guide
to
Traffic
Generating
Development
2002,
a
4-­‐lane
undivided
road
has
a
capacity
of
1800
𝑝 𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟,
assuming
clearway
conditions
due
to
the
presence
of
bus
lanes
on
either
side.
Traffic
volume
data
estimated
to
be
3500
𝑣 𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠/ℎ𝑟
during
peak
hour
(6AM-­‐10AM
and
3PM-­‐
7PM)
Therefore,
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝑜 𝑓
𝑣 𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑝 𝑒𝑟
ℎ 𝑜𝑢𝑟 =
3500
4
= 875
𝑣 𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠/ℎ𝑟
Total
of
190
trucks
per
day
yields
approximately
16
trucks
per
hour.
Assuming
10%
of
the
volume
consist
of
heavy
vehicles
then,
88
heavy
vehicles
per
hour.
Each
heavy
vehicle
is
equivalent
to
3.5
pcu.
Hence,
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑝 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
𝑐 𝑎𝑟
𝑢 𝑛𝑖𝑡
𝑝 𝑒𝑟
𝑝𝑐𝑢 = 876 − 88 + 88 + 16 ∗ 3.5
= 1152
𝑝 𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟 < 1800
𝑝 𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟

14. CIVL3010:
EIA
Final
Report
Group
40
Page
|
13
C2:
Frank
St
From
Table
4.3
of
the
RTA
Guide
to
Traffic
Generating
Development
2002,
a
single-­‐laned
road
with
adjacent
parking
lane
has
a
capacity
of
900
pcu/hr.
According
to
Table
3.7
of
the
RTA
Guide
to
Traffic
Generating
Development,
if
no
traffic
data
exists
then
an
estimate
of
volume
can
be
determined
by
calculating
the
gross
floor
area
(GFA)
of
buildings
along
Frank
St.
Taking
measurements
from
Google
Maps,
an
approximation
can
be
determined.
𝐺𝐹𝐴 = 138000𝑚#
From
Table
3.7
for
industrial
factories
during
peak
periods,
the
ratio
of
vehicles
to
gross
floor
area
is
1/100𝑚
#
.
Therefore,
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝑜 𝑓
𝑣 𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 =
𝐺𝐹𝐴
4ℎ𝑟
∗
1
100𝑚#
=
138000
4 ∗ 100
= 345
𝑣 𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠/ℎ𝑟
Assuming
heavy
vehicle
capacity
of
10%,
then
34.5
heavy
vehicles
per
her
utilize
the
road
space.
Hence,
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑝 𝑐𝑢 = 345 − 35 + (35 + 16) ∗ 3.5
= 488.5
𝑝 𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟 < 900
𝑝 𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟
Appendix
D:
Calculation
of
slurry
waste
According
to
Boral
Concrete
and
Quarries
Country
Queensland,
25
tonnes/week
of
slurry
is
produced
in
washout
pits
for
70
truck
movements
per
day.
Assuming
similarity,
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡
𝑜 𝑓
𝑠 𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑦 =
25
70
∗ 190
= 67.86
𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠/𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘
The
percentage
of
waste
relative
to
the
total
production
capacity
can
be
calculated
as
follows,
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
67.86 ∗ 52
125000
= 2.8%
Appendix
E:
Calculation
of
water
waste
Boral
Concrete
and
Quarries
estimates
approximately
1184
𝑚a
/𝑦𝑟
of
contaminated
water
will
be
utilized
for
70
truck
movements
per
day.
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡
𝑜 𝑓
𝑤 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 =
1184
70
∗ 190
= 32137
𝑚a
/𝑦𝑟
Therefore,
the
percentage
of
contaminated
water
relative
to
the
total
production
capacity
can
be
calculated
as
follows,
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
32137
50000
= 64.27%