sydney-city-centre-review-of-environmental-factors
sydney-city-centre-review-of-environmental-factors sydney-city-centre-review-of-environmental-factors
the United States Environment Protection Authority and UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In the case of the proposal, it is clear that the ambient average conditions in the afternoon are sufficient to warrant dust control and suppression measures, notwithstanding the potential shielding/channelling effect provided by the urban environment that may lessen or worsen the conditions on site. Existing ambient air quality The existing ambient air quality of the proposal footprint is heavily influenced by road traffic emissions, principally comprising oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), oxides of sulphur (SO x ) and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). Other anthropogenic air pollutant sources include the industrial areas located in Botany Bay (to the south) and Homebush (to the west). The nearest locations where long-term ambient air quality is monitored are in Rozelle and Randwick. These sites are typical of the inner suburbs and representative of the city centre and therefore the study area. The long-term monitored air quality classification in these two locations is assessed as ‘good-to-very-good’ for approximately 60 per cent of the time and ‘fair’ for 30 per cent of the time. For the remaining 10 per cent of the time it is ‘poor’ due to high ozone levels (taken from the Classification of Air Quality, (EPA, 2013)). Table 6-61 shows the ambient air quality recorded for the key road traffic pollutants in the above two locations from 1 January 2013 until 1 January 2014 (EPA, 2014). Table 6-61 Ambient air quality of the key road traffic pollutants Pollutant 8-hour/one day averaging period National ambient air quality standards and goals (averaging period) Annual average mean concentration and (annual average maximum concentration) Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm (8-hours) 0.27 (1.3) microgram per cubic metre (μgm -3 ) Particulate matter (PM 10 ) 50 μgm -3 (one day) 18.9–18.3 (55.3–58.5) μgm -3 Annual average Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) 0.02 ppm 0.001 ppm Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) 0.03 ppm 0.007–0.011 ppm Ambient air quality within the city centre is likely to reflect the concentrations recorded in Rozelle and Randwick. The daily and annual average concentrations are several orders of magnitude below the Air NEPM goals with the exception of PM 10 . The Air NEPM PM 10 criterion was exceeded for three days between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2014. Despite this, it can be concluded that the local ambient air quality in terms of the principal road traffic pollutant concentrations is favourable when compared to other major global cities around the world. Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 397 Review of Environmental Factors
Air quality sensitive receivers There is a diversity of land uses within the study area (refer to section 6.5.2). They include (high-rise) residential buildings, public open spaces and other sensitive receiver types (eg educations facilities, health facilities and community support facilities). Also the high number of pedestrians within the city centre means that the whole study area should be considered sensitive to changes in air quality. 6.12.3 Potential impacts Air quality impacts during construction Dust dispersion There would be potential for dust dispersion due to the high erosion and mobilisation of the underlying soils (refer to section 6.8.2), combined with the prevailing local meteorological conditions and wind tunnelling effect along the city’s roads. Ground excavation work has the greatest risk and potential for generating dust. This would occur as a result of undertaking proposed utility adjustments, drainage modifications, road furniture relocation, and general signage, traffic signal and lighting pole relocations. Table 3-3 to Table 3-7 and Table 3-14 describe the location where these activities are planned to take place within the proposal footprint. Consequently, there is at least one location in each work site where there is the potential for dust to be generated. The associated impacts would depend on the duration of work in each location. The more major work locations (refer to the grey shaded cells in Table 3-3 to Table 3-7) would be typically in place for longer than three months. Despite this, any ground excavation work would be a small component of the construction activities taking place at a given work site. As such, dust from these activities would only be generated for a short period during the time the work site would be under construction. Dust would also be generated from a number of other activities (ie cutting, grinding, sawing) as: (Sections of) the road surface is ‘broken out’ (associated with all types of improvement described in Table 3-2) The footpaths, kerbs and intersections are adjusted (associated with the corresponding types of improvement described in Table 3-2) Other supporting work is undertake, the most notable of which would be regrading and resurfacing the road. Table 3-3 to Table 3-7 describes the locations where these activities would take place. The risk of dust mobilisation increases where excavations are exposed for long periods and materials are stockpiled. As there would be a requirement to close off each work site at the end of a shift and remove any material offsite to a construction compound or laydown area the potential for dust generation within the proposal footprint would be reduced. Stockpile management at the currently operational construction compounds/laydown areas (refer to section 3.5.1) would be managed in accordance with existing adopted practices to ensure dust propagation would be limited. Dust could also be generated along the haulage routes, however the Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 398 Review of Environmental Factors
- Page 363 and 364: Location Receiver * Items marked wi
- Page 365 and 366: Table 6-43 Temporary construction l
- Page 367 and 368: Work site Section Receiver F1: Macq
- Page 369 and 370: Landscape character and visual impa
- Page 371 and 372: The tree’s consistency and contri
- Page 373 and 374: Table 6-46 Tree pruning and removal
- Page 375 and 376: Turning restrictions and provisions
- Page 377 and 378: Work site Section Visual receiver R
- Page 379 and 380: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 381 and 382: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 383 and 384: Despite this, Sydney Harbour suppor
- Page 385 and 386: The proposal footprint is located a
- Page 387 and 388: Flood risk The proposal footprint h
- Page 389 and 390: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 391 and 392: to contamination or the generation
- Page 393 and 394: Acid sulphate soils Acid sulphate s
- Page 395 and 396: Contaminated land (records) No site
- Page 397 and 398: Geology and soil impacts during ope
- Page 399 and 400: Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting
- Page 401 and 402: Table 6-56 Statutorily protected bi
- Page 403 and 404: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 405 and 406: 6.10.2 Potential impacts Waste gene
- Page 407 and 408: In addition, the contractor(s) woul
- Page 409 and 410: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 411 and 412: 6.11.4 Safeguards and management me
- Page 413: Affected roads There are no screeni
- Page 417 and 418: the roads covered by the proposal f
- Page 419 and 420: Greenhouse Gas Assessment Workbook
- Page 421 and 422: Climate change construction impacts
- Page 423 and 424: 6.14 Hazard and risk This section a
- Page 425 and 426: Hazard Potential consequence Key se
- Page 427 and 428: Impact Environmental safeguard Resp
- Page 429 and 430: 6.15.2 Other committed and/or appro
- Page 431 and 432: Project Description Location and in
- Page 433 and 434: Project Description Location and in
- Page 435 and 436: Table 6-68 Potential cumulative imp
- Page 437 and 438: Cumulative effect Disruption to pub
- Page 439 and 440: Cumulative effect Key issues
- Page 441 and 442: Cumulative effect Key issues Street
- Page 443 and 444: Table 6-69 Potential cumulative eff
- Page 445 and 446: 6.15.4 Safeguards and management me
- Page 447 and 448: Effect Affected factors/receivers L
- Page 449 and 450: Effect Affected factors/receivers L
- Page 451 and 452: 7 Environmental management This cha
- Page 453 and 454: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
- Page 455 and 456: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
- Page 457 and 458: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
- Page 459 and 460: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
- Page 461 and 462: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
- Page 463 and 464: No Impact Environmental safeguard R
the United States Environment Protection Authority and UK Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In the case <strong>of</strong> the proposal, it is clear<br />
that the ambient average conditions in the afternoon are sufficient to warrant dust<br />
control and suppression measures, notwithstanding the potential<br />
shielding/channelling effect provided by the urban environment that may lessen or<br />
worsen the conditions on site.<br />
Existing ambient air quality<br />
The existing ambient air quality <strong>of</strong> the proposal footprint is heavily influenced by road<br />
traffic emissions, principally comprising oxides <strong>of</strong> nitrogen (NO x ), oxides <strong>of</strong> sulphur<br />
(SO x ) and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). Other anthropogenic air pollutant<br />
sources include the industrial areas located in Botany Bay (to the south) and<br />
Homebush (to the west).<br />
The nearest locations where long-term ambient air quality is monitored are in Rozelle<br />
and Randwick. These sites are typical <strong>of</strong> the inner suburbs and representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>city</strong> <strong>centre</strong> and therefore the study area.<br />
The long-term monitored air quality classification in these two locations is assessed<br />
as ‘good-to-very-good’ for approximately 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the time and ‘fair’ for 30 per<br />
cent <strong>of</strong> the time. For the remaining 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> the time it is ‘poor’ due to high<br />
ozone levels (taken from the Classification <strong>of</strong> Air Quality, (EPA, 2013)).<br />
Table 6-61 shows the ambient air quality recorded for the key road traffic pollutants in<br />
the above two locations from 1 January 2013 until 1 January 2014 (EPA, 2014).<br />
Table 6-61<br />
Ambient air quality <strong>of</strong> the key road traffic pollutants<br />
Pollutant<br />
8-hour/one day averaging period<br />
National ambient air<br />
quality standards and<br />
goals (averaging period)<br />
Annual average mean<br />
concentration and (annual<br />
average maximum<br />
concentration)<br />
Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm (8-hours) 0.27 (1.3) microgram per cubic<br />
metre (μgm -3 )<br />
Particulate matter (PM 10 ) 50 μgm -3 (one day) 18.9–18.3 (55.3–58.5) μgm -3<br />
Annual average<br />
Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) 0.02 ppm 0.001 ppm<br />
Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) 0.03 ppm 0.007–0.011 ppm<br />
Ambient air quality within the <strong>city</strong> <strong>centre</strong> is likely to reflect the concentrations<br />
recorded in Rozelle and Randwick. The daily and annual average concentrations are<br />
several orders <strong>of</strong> magnitude below the Air NEPM goals with the exception <strong>of</strong> PM 10 .<br />
The Air NEPM PM 10 criterion was exceeded for three days between 1 January 2013<br />
and 1 January 2014. Despite this, it can be concluded that the local ambient air<br />
quality in terms <strong>of</strong> the principal road traffic pollutant concentrations is favourable<br />
when compared to other major global cities around the world.<br />
Sydney City Centre Capa<strong>city</strong> Improvement 397<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> Environmental Factors