Holcim - information responses · 6450 DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lanes) 2014 07 14.docx Page 1...

1

17 July 2014

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

PO Box 15009 City East

Queensland 4002

Attention: Mr James Coutts

A/ Deputy Director General

Dear James

RE: DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE

AND PLANNING

PROPOSED INNES PARK SOUTH QUARRY

1265 ELLIOTT HEADS ROAD, BAROLIN HOMESTEAD ROAD

AND BACK WINDEMERE ROAD, ELLIOTT HEADS

LOT 1 ON RP864143 AND LOTS 5 AND 6 ON SP228681

PART (1) RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT'S INFORMATION

REQUEST DATED 2 JULY 2014

Your ref: WR14/12905

Council ref: 322.2012.36882.1

1. INTRODUCTION

We refer to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and

Planning’s (DSDIP) request (dated 2 July 2014) for additional information

in relation to Holcim’s application at Innes Park South. This response

addresses part of the information requested in the Department's

correspondence.

2. DEED AND LEASE

As you may be aware Holcim's solicitors have been in contact with the

lessor's legal representatives to review proposed amendments to the lease

and deed which address the matters raised by DSDIP. We will provide you

with the feedback on the progress to the amendments to the lease when

we have further information.

3. TRAFFIC

As discussed at the meeting of 4 July 2014 with Holcim and Cardno,

Holcim's traffic consultants, we are strongly of the view that the proposed

conditioning of the consent to require a ‘seagull’ treatment of the site

access intersection (ie. acceleration lane) represents an over-engineered

management response. Further, consistent with Cardno's advice, the

application of this level of treatment directly contradicts Principle 4 of

TMR’s Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Development. Further,

it is also is inconsistent with DSDIP’s own Temporary State Planning Policy

2/12 Planning for Prosperity released in August 2012.

2

A detailed discussion of this matter is provided in Attachment 1. In

summary, we are strongly opposed to a seagull treatment of the site

intersection for the following reasons:

1. The previously-conditioned channelised access treatment already

exceeds the requirements of the relevant national road design

guideline.

2. A performance-based assessment prepared by Cardno for the DA

confirms that the development does not trigger the requirement for

provision of an acceleration lane treatment in accordance with

nationally accepted intervention thresholds.

3. DSDIP’s traffic consultant’s view does not appear to be informed by a

performance-based assessment as required by DSDIP’s own policy

(refer 4 below). As requested at the meeting, Holcim would welcome

the opportunity to review the report prepared for DSDIP by Beard

Traffic Consulting to confirm the level of assessment that has

informed the DSDIP’s traffic consultant’s view and recommendations.

4. The recommendation by the DSDIP’s traffic consultant for an

acceleration lane is inconsistent with DSDIP’s own policy (Temporary

State Planning Policy 2/12 Planning for Prosperity), in particular, the

stated intent to provide an “efficient and effective performance-

based development assessment process that removes

unnecessary costs on development by eliminating the ‘gold

plating’ of infrastructure”. The recommendation for an acceleration

lane is a clear example of ‘gold plated’ infrastructure, given that it is

far in excess of that required by nationally accepted guidelines and

also far in excess of TMR’s own typical practice (refer 6 below).

5. The court precedent cited by and in support of DSDIP’s traffic

consultant’s view does not appear at all relevant to the current

circumstances.

6. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) acknowledged at

the meeting that it would not likely provide an acceleration lane if it

was undertaking the works itself given funding constraints. The

requirement for the proponent to undertake works above and beyond

that likely undertaken by TMR in a comparable situation directly

contradicts TMR’s Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of

Development and in particular, Principle 4.

7. The ‘gold plating’ is an unnecessary cost on the development, as the

previously conditioned channelised access treatment will itself provide

a high level of safety, over and above that which is required by the

relevant national road design guideline.

We therefore request that:

the DSDIP give fair and serious consideration to the information

provided in Attachment 1 which contests the views and

recommendation of the DSDIP’s traffic consultant; and

the review contained therein is forwarded to TMR for further

consideration and advice to DSDIP in respect of this matter.

3

4. GEOTECHNICAL

Our meeting of 10 July 2014, which was attended by DSDIP

representatives and the independent consultants, we enclose for your

information a further detailed plan (Attachment 2) showing the proposed

limits of quarry pit development, visual bunding and proximity of both to

the site boundaries.

The following changes are proposed to the location of the proposed Innes

Park South Quarry extraction limit and perimeter bund. These changes

reflect the actions arising from the teleconference on Thursday 10 July

2014.

1. Northern Perimeter Bund - a segment of the proposed perimeter

bund (located between grid references 445,862mE, 7,247,752mN

and 446,155mE, 7,247, 665) has been relocated to the north. The

objective of this change is to increase the minimum buffer distance

between the southern toe of the bund and the partially relocated

crest of the quarry face (refer below) to 11m.

2. Quarry Extraction Limit - a short segment of the proposed quarry

extraction limit (located between grid references 445,836mE,

7,247,731mN and 445,930mE, 7,247, 656mN) has been relocated

so that a minimum buffer distance of 19m is established between

the southern toe of the immediately adjacent perimeter bund and

the crest of the quarry face in this location.

As discussed, we trust that this information satisfies the queries raised by

your geotechnical consultant in relation to this issue.

5. FLYROCK

We are waiting for feedback from Holcim's blast specialists and will provide

this to you when it is available.

6. NOISE

Results of modelling of the operations with an eastern noise bund in place

around the mobile equipment are provided in Attachment 3. There is a

change in the 40dB noise contour if the proposed development is

conditioned to provide an eastern bund around the crushing and screening

plant. When compared with the non eastern bunded scenario, the eastern

bund modelling shows the potential for an additional 25 lots within the

proposed Austcorp development scenario, subject to meeting other

planning considerations of the Department that may apply.

Note that noise affectation slightly increases (ie. extends further

eastwards) in mid-life stages of the quarry operations. This is due to a

reduction in the shielding effect of the quarry pit as it expands on

machinery operating in and around the pit face.

This means that the 40dBA contour line, as modelled for Scenario 2 (ie.

mid-life stage), would represent the western limit for construction of any

dwellings on the Austcorp land, given that modelled results indicate land

east of this limit (for both initial and mid-life stages) would be in an area of

the Austcorp land that is below the threshold criteria limit of 40dBA. As

detailed in our previous response to this issue, the extent of the 40dBA

4

noise contour is further reduced once the mobile plant and equipment is

located within the quarry pit.

Finally I note that Holcim has taken advice from its noise experts, SLR

consulting, for a range of scenarios to understand potential treatments to

address noise issues (which have taken into account a range of plant

locations and bunds) at Holcim's expense, as required by DSDIP.

We trust that the information provided is useful in finalising the

assessment of the application. Should you require any further information,

please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

John Gaskell

Director

Attachment 1

Cardno Traffic Advice

6450 DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lanes) 2014 07 14.docx Page 1

Technical Memorandum

Commentary for Holcim’s Response to DSDIP re: Recommended Access Intersection Treatment by Beard Traffic Engineering

Further to the meeting of 4 July 2014 with the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSSIP), their traffic consultant (Beard Traffic Engineering), Holcim’s traffic consultant (Cardno) and Holcim the DSDIP traffic consultant’s opinion on the matter is acknowledged. However, it is the view of Cardno that a seagull treatment (i.e. provision of an acceleration lane) at the site access intersection (as recommended by Beard Traffic Engineering) is an over-engineered “gold plated” response, when the site access is considered in context, particularly considering the low turning traffic volumes that will be associated with the quarry.

The detailed traffic impact assessment undertaken by Cardno identified that the development does not trigger the requirement for an acceleration lane treatment. This finding was based upon a detailed performance based assessment of the development’s access requirements against the nationally accepted criteria stipulated within the Guide to Road Design publication issued by Austroads, and referenced by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) traffic engineering guideline the Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM). Table 1 summarises the assessment undertaken against the industry standard, Austroads, criteria.

Table 1 Acceleration Lane Assessment Against Industry Standard Criteria

Criteria Commentary

Criteria 1 - Insufficient gaps exist for vehicles to enter a traffic stream

Analysis confirms that exiting vehicles will experience delays of not more than 29 seconds which is approximately half the industry accepted intervention

threshold of 57 seconds delay. That is, the access operation will be twice as good as typically accepted.

Criteria 2 - Turning volumes are high (e.g. 300 to 500 vph)

On the busiest operational days the peak turning demands generated by the quarry will not exceed 40 vph. This equates to only 8% to 13% of the industry accepted intervention threshold of 300 to 500vph. That is, turning traffic will only be one-eighth of the industry

accepted intervention threshold.

Criteria 3 - The observation angle falls below the requirements of the minimum gap sight distance model (for example, inside of horizontal curves).

On-site inspection confirms that the sight distance achieved at the access will meet all relevant road design requirements.

Criteria 4 - Heavy vehicles pulling into the traffic stream would cause excessive slowing of major road vehicles.

Analysis indicates that there will be sufficient gaps to accommodate vehicles exiting the traffic stream even during peak periods.

Title Innes Park South

Commentary for DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lane Condition)

Client Holcim Project No CEB06450

Date 14 July 2014 Status Final

Author Jeffrey Baczynski Discipline Traffic and Transport

Reviewer Brett McClurg Office Brisbane

Innes Park South Commentary for DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lane Condition)

CEB06450 Cardno 14 July 2014

Prepared for Holcim Page 2

It is reinforced that the previously-conditioned channelised access treatment is itself a higher order treatment than required by the relevant design standard (i.e. as required by TMR’s RPDM). Holcim has, however, elected to provide a channelised access treatment that exceeds relevant road design requirements as they are strongly committed to the safe operation of site facilities.

We note that the recommendation provided by Beard Traffic Engineering is not supported by any documented traffic assessment to demonstrate that the actual development triggers the requirement for provision of an acceleration lane when considered against industry accepted criteria. Instead, it appears that DSDIP’s traffic consultant’s view is based solely on an individual’s opinion and that this opinion is inconsistent with TMR’s own practice across Queensland, as noted by TMR’s representative at the meeting and detailed below.

We have also investigated the court case (P&E Court Case 4096 of 2012) which was cited by DSDIP’s traffic consultant as providing precedent for the opinion that an acceleration lane treatment is required. In regards to the apparent precedent provided by the case we make the following comments:

> The matter involved access to a section of the Bruce Highway carrying some 65,000 vehicles

per day as compared to the 4,000 vehicles per day carried by Elliott Heads Road. That is, the

matter related to a section of road carrying 15 times as much traffic as Elliot Heads Road and

therefore it is not considered to be a comparable situation.

> Importantly, TMR as a concurrence agency did not oppose the application and via formal

written correspondence (28 October 2013) elected to not join the appeal as it believed it had

properly considered the subject application in approving its access arrangements.

> The application was approved (with access remaining as existing) except for the external

delivery of concrete, that is, the primary use sought being the manufacturing of concrete

products was approved.

We therefore seriously question how this matter supports DSDIP’s traffic consultant’s view. We would actually suggest the opposite, as TMR as a concurrence agency did not contest the access arrangements and the development was ultimately approved.

We also note with concern the changed position of TMR on this matter, in particular given the detailed discussions that were held between TMR’s regional representatives and Cardno prior to finalisation of TMR’s original conditions for the project. We believe that this changed position reflects the fact that DSDIP traffic consultant’s view is based solely on opinion rather than a performance based assessment of the access requirements against nationally accepted design guidance. We assume that TMR’s regional representatives would have undertaken such an assessment, or reviewed the assessment by Cardno, when forming their view that the previously conditioned channelised access treatment was appropriate. In addition, we believe that when drafting the original conditions TMR’s regional representatives would have considered the consistency of requiring an acceleration lane treatment as compared to TMR’s own local practices.

Further, we remind DSDIP of TMR’s acknowledgement at the meeting that it would not likely apply this level of intersection treatment in a similar situation if the project was being delivered by TMR. This inconsistency particularly acknowledges the additional financial burden placed on this project by an effective doubling of construction costs, in addition to land acquisition costs.

Further, the requirement to provide an acceleration lane directly contradicts TMR’s Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Development. The guideline details the “underlying principles that guide the assessment of road impacts on the State-controlled Road network and the circumstances where a developer will be required to meet conditions and/or contribute to measures to mitigate the road impacts of their development”. In relation to intervention levels (Principal 4) the guideline clearly identifies that “Main Roads only requires development proponents to adopt intervention levels that Main Roads itself would use”. The guideline clearly stipulates that proponents only need to adopt the intervention levels adopted by TMR even if these levels are less than desired due to funding constraints and competing priorities. The requirement to provide an acceleration lane treatment is therefore a clear contradiction to this guideline as TMR has explicitly stated, at the meeting, that it would not likely provide such a treatment, due to funding constraints, if it was undertaking the works.

The requirement to provide an acceleration lane is also inconsistent with DSDIP’s own Temporary State Planning Policy 2/12 Planning for Prosperity released in August 2012. The policy specifically identifies an intent to provide an “efficient and effective performance-based development assessment process that removes unnecessary costs on development by eliminating the ‘gold plating’ of infrastructure”.

Innes Park South Commentary for DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lane Condition)

CEB06450 Cardno 14 July 2014

Prepared for Holcim Page 3

Critically, it would appear that a performance-based assessment has not been undertaken by Beard Traffic Engineering to establish the requirement for the acceleration lane but rather, as indicated in the meeting, this position is based on a personal opinion or “value-judgement”. Furthermore, the requirement for an acceleration lane is clearly ‘gold plating’, as defined in the policy referenced above, as it is in excess of the guidance presented within national road design guidelines. The assertion that the treatment is far in excess of that required by national guidelines is supported by TMR’s acknowledgement that it would not likely provide such a treatment in a comparable situation for one of its own projects.

In summary we make the following concluding points:

> The previously-conditioned channelised access treatment already exceeds the requirements

of the relevant national road design guideline (ie. the TMR RPDM).

> A performance-based assessment confirms that the development does not trigger the

requirement for provision of an acceleration lane treatment in accordance with nationally

accepted (Austroads) intervention thresholds.

> DSDIP’s traffic consultant’s (Beard Traffic Engineering) view does not appear to be informed

by a performance-based assessment as required by DSDIP’s own policy. As requested at the

meeting, Cardno would welcome the opportunity to review the report prepared for DSDIP by

Beard Traffic Engineering.

> The court precedent (P&E Court Case 4096 of 2012) cited as supporting DSDIP’s traffic

consultant’s view appears questionable and not representative of the subject situation,

particularly given the subject development was ultimately approved.

> TMR has acknowledged that it would not likely provide an acceleration lane if it was

undertaking the works itself given funding constraints. The requirement for the proponent to

undertake works above and beyond that likely undertaken by TMR in a comparable situation

contradicts TMR’s own development assessment policies.

> The acceleration lane requirement contradicts DSDIP own policy, as it is a clear example of

‘gold plated’ infrastructure as defined by TMR itself, given that it is far in excess of that

required by nationally accepted guidelines and also far in excess of TMR’s own typical

practice.

> The ‘gold plating’ is an unnecessary cost on the proponent, as the previously-conditioned

channelised access treatment will itself provide a high level of safety.

Therefore, as indicated at the meeting, we reiterate our view that the engineering treatment now proposed by Beard Traffic Engineering, contrary to the conditions developed previously by TMR for the project, is excessive, is not informed by a performance based assessment, is unwarranted and is an effective ‘gold plating’ of the intersection treatment required. We also reiterate that the previously condition channelised access treatment already exceeds the national road design requirements.

Attachment 2 Geotechnical Diagrams

Overview and Detail Showing Adjusted Extraction Limit Offset to Site Visual Bund

Adjusted extraction limit

Attachment 3

SLR Response – Noise modelling of potential further bunds

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Suite 7, 240 Waterworks Road Ashgrove QLD 4060 Australia

(PO Box 844 Ashgrove QLD 4060 Australia) T: +61 7 3858 4800 F: +61 7 3858 4801

E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

ABN 29 001 584 612

11 July 2014

20-2394 Processing Area East Bund 20140711.docx

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd Level 8, 799 Pacific Hwy Chatswood NSW 2067

Attention: Dr Justin Meleo

Dear Justin

Innes Park South Quarry

Processing Area Acoustic Bunding

Further to the assessment of operational noise impacts associated with the Innes Park South Quarry presented in SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) Report 20-2394-R4 dated 10 June 2014, Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd have engaged SLR to carry out noise modelling incorporating additional noise mitigation at the processing plant area. For the purpose of developing alternate impact mitigation that minimises impacts to the east and north-east, SLR modelled the following operational scenarios:

Scenario 1 “Initial Stages Operations” with a 6 m high east side bund, and

Scenario 2 “Mid-life Stages Operations” with a 6 m high east side bund.

The above modelled scenarios included all plant proposed to be operated at the quarry (ie not just the mobile crushing and screening plant).

The modelled east bund was connected to the proposed 6 m high north side bund with an opening in the south-east corner for ingress / egress of mobile plant. The location of the east bund was determined by Holcim in consultation with SLR taking into consideration the following:

1. The additional shielding requirements of existing noise sensitive receptors to the west as a result of the mobile crushing and screening plant moving approximately 450 m closer.

2. The footprint associated with 6 m high bunding.

3. The operational requirement of mobile plant, including dump trucks, front end loaders, an excavator and watercart, being able to safely and efficiently operate within the processing area bounded by earth bunding as well as movements through the ingress / egress area.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show a comparison of the noise contours with and without the 6 m high east side bund for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 respectively. As a result of the design constraints listed above, in particular the need for the mobile crushing and screening plant to be located immediately adjacent to the west side bund (ie overburden stockpile) to comply with the noise criteria at existing noise sensitive receptors, noise mitigation provided by the east bund marginally improves the extent of the noise criteria exceedance over the Austcorp development.

No further modelling of the east side bund has been considered because it is not feasible to locate the east side bund closer to the mobile crushing and screening plant at its current height nor is it practicable to increase the height of the eastern bund above 6 m as this would require the bund to be moved further east away from the crushing and screening plant in the processing plant area.

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd Innes Park South Quarry Processing Area Acoustic Bunding

11 July 2014 20-2394 Processing Area East Bund

20140711.docx Page 2

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Figure 1 Scenario 1 Initial Stages Operations Noise Contour With and Without Eastern Bund

Figure 2 Scenario 2 Mid-life Stages Operations Noise Contour With and Without Eastern Bund

East Side Bund at Processing Site

With East Side Bund

Without East Side Bund

East Side Bund at Processing Site

With East Side Bund

Without East Side Bund





Figure 3 Scenario 1 Initial Stages Operations Noise Contour With and Without Eastern Bund over the Austcorp Development

Figure 4 Scenario 2 Mid-life Stages Operations Noise Contour With and Without Eastern Bund over the Austcorp Development





I trust the above is sufficient for your present requirements.

Yours sincerely

STEVE HENRY Associate - Acoustics

1

21 July 2014 Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning PO Box 15009 City East Queensland 4002 Attention: Mr James Coutts A/ Deputy Director General Dear James RE: DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE

AND PLANNING PROPOSED INNES PARK SOUTH QUARRY 1265 ELLIOTT HEADS ROAD, BAROLIN HOMESTEAD ROAD AND BACK WINDEMERE ROAD, ELLIOTT HEADS LOT 1 ON RP864143 AND LOTS 5 AND 6 ON SP228681 PART (2) RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT'S INFORMATION

REQUEST DATED 2 JULY 2014

Your ref: WR14/12905 Council ref: 322.2012.36882.1

1. INTRODUCTION We refer to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s (DSDIP) request (dated 2 July 2014) for additional information in relation to Holcim’s application at Innes Park South. This response addresses the part of the information requested in the Department's correspondence related to flyrock. 2. FLYROCK Item 4 in your request for information (dated 2 July 2014) required further information on flyrock. Further to our previous response on this issue (dated 20 June 2014) please find attached additional information (Attachment 1) from MAXAM, Holcim’s ‘rock on ground’ contractor. MAXAM is a specialist blast consultant that is contracted at many of Holcim’s sites to design and implement blasting programs. A summary of the information provided by MAXAM is as follows: MAXAM would implement a blast design and execution of explosive

loading that uses a process that is implemented successfully at Holcim sites nationally that enables safe and environmentally compliant blasts;

The process that would be used by MAXAM at the Innes Park South site incorporates multiple measures to conduct safe blasting practices including the prevention of flyrock;

2

The clearance distance to be used for evacuation of personnel (and plant) should be determined based on site parameters used for each individual blast. The evacuation distance can be variable and is determined by the management of risk to acceptable levels. These clearance distances utilise an international recognised prediction model; and

The requirement to exclude anyone within a set distance in any site

licence is not supported by this process. The clearance distances should be based on the actual burdens, stemming heights, ground conditions and other blast parameters such as blast hole size.

We also provide for your review a map (Attachment 2) of the proposed quarry site which shows that the Boral weighbridge is located approximately 345 m from the top of pit (ie. nearest blast point), while the Bannister residence is located approximately 298 m from the top of pit. Notwithstanding, we request that the expertise and advice of MAXAM be taken into consideration by DSDIP in reviewing this issue and developing conditions. Accordingly, rather than an arbitrary separation distance being imposed as a condition of consent, we suggest that conditioning of this issue reflect the need for incorporation of a Blast Management Plan (BMP) in the Quarry Plan of Management, which would be prepared in consultation with MAXAM. All blasting would be required to adhere to the BMP and best practice blast management in order to ensure safety to all life and property/structures within the vicinity of the quarry site. We trust that the information provided is useful in finalising the assessment of the application. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely,

John Gaskell

Director

Attachment 1 Maxam Advice

Site Review – Company

Innes Park South

July 2014 Holcim

of 7

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Innes Park Site..................................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Blast Design Process .......................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Flyrock Prevention ............................................................................................................................................. 6

5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Authored: Shane Slaughter

17 July, 2014

014

Disclaimer:

MAXAM takes all reasonable efforts to ensure an accurate understanding of client

requirements. The information contained in this report is as accurate and up-to-date as

possible based on this understanding. MAXAM accepts no liability to any person for any

injury, loss or damage resulting from the use of or reliance upon the information contained

in this report or for any injury, loss or damage resulting from the omission of any information

in this report. No expressed or implied warranties are given other than those implied

mandatory by territory legislation.

of 7

Executive Summary

MAXAM would implement a blast design and execution of explosive loading at the Holcim Innes Park

South site. MAXAM would use a process that is implemented successfully at Holcim sites nationally that

enables safe and environmentally compliant blasts.

The process to be used would employ face profiling and boretracking to have actual burdens on

blastholes for development of explosive loading criteria. In addition drill logs would also be consulted to

alter these criteria where ground conditions warrant.

The clearance distance to be used for evacuation of personnel (and plant) should be determined on site

parameters used for each individual blast. The evacuation distance can be variable and is determined by

the management of risk to acceptable levels. These clearance distances utilise an international

recognised prediction model.

The requirement to exclude anyone within a set distance in any site licence is not supported by this

process. The clearance distances should be based on the actual burdens, stemming heights, ground

conditions and other blast parameters such as blasthole size.

of 7

1. Introduction

MAXAM undertakes supply of blasting products and services to Holcim nationally within Australia. This

service does include supply of explosive product, blast design, loading and Shotfiring services. As part of

this service Holcim have requested MAXAM to consider how we would supply the Innes Park South Site

in a safe manner such as to meet all licence conditions that may be in force at this site. In particular the

issues of blasting in close proximity to houses and management of flyrock potential were of particular

concern

2. Innes Park Site

The Innes Park South site is located near Bundaberg Queensland. An aerial image of the site is shown in

Figure 1. The nearest resident, Bannister residence, is 298m from the pit area and the Boral

Weighbridge is located 346m from the pit.

Figure 1. Innes Park South Aerial Map showing location of nearest residence and Boral weighbridge

3. Blast Design Process

MAXAM would undertake supply according to uSafe, MAXAM’s Safety Management System, which

provides the framework of how it undertakes supply of explosive product and services. The main 2

procedures (but not the only procedures that apply) that outline the process that is used are:

of 7

TS 001 Technical Services Field Requirements

D&B 001 Drill and Blast Procedure

For a site such as Innes Park South a full design service would be implemented. This means that the

blast design process would utilise Face Profiling and Boretracking. This means that any vertical free

faces on a blast are measured by survey type equipment such that blastholes can be designed with

burdens to reduce the risk of occurrence of flyrock. An example of such a blasthole design is shown in

Figure 2.

Figure 2. Blasthole cross section showing design burden.

In addition after drilling the track of the blastholes is also measured and compared against the measured

free faces to ensure that actual burdens are calculated and if required the explosive loading is altered if

less than site specific burdens are found.

Drill logs are requested from the driller as these are also used in developing the explosive loading criteria

as these can indicate changed ground conditions.

of 7

4. Flyrock Prevention

The minimum load burdens are set for the blasthole size and explosive type to be used at the site. They

will be recorded in a site parameter sheet, D&B 005 Site Blast Design Parameter sheet, which is

maintained for each site MAXAM provide Shotfiring services for. As mentioned in Section 3 the explosive

loading criteria incorporate these minimum load burdens as well as the information from the actual burden

and drill logs.

The design software that MAXAM utilises to design blasthole placement has an International recognised

model for blast ejected rock prediction built in. It is used to calculate clearance distances for personnel

and plant. This model can be used to predict flyrock travel distances and incorporates such parameters

as burden, blasthole size, rock properties and stemming amounts. An example of the model output is

shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Predictive model for blast rock ejection

Within the letter from the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning dated 2nd

of July

2014 in the section on flyrock indicates some expected blast parameters. The actual blast parameters

that will be used on site will differ from these dependent on site risk factors. Stemming will be more than

2.5m mentioned, ranges from 2.6 –to over 4m used by MAXAM at various Australian sites for 89 and

102mm blastholes. The minimum burden can also change with ranges from 2.7 to over 4m used at

various Australian sites for 89 and 102mm blastholes. The site parameter sheet, face burden

measurement as well as drill logs will all determine what parameters are to be used to prevent flyrock.

The statement that no blasting should be conducted within 300m of any occupied structure or work area

should not apply. The clearance distance to be used for evacuation of personnel (and plant) should be

determined on the parameters used for the blast. The evacuation distance could in fact be greater in

of 7

some cases but it is also possible to blast with lesser distances if the risk have been managed to

acceptable levels.

In the majority of cases where MAXAM conduct Shotfiring the clearance distance when initiating a blast

will be in excess of 250m and will be greater when the risk of rock ejection is not within acceptable levels.

5. Conclusion

The process that would be used by MAXAM at the Innes Park South site would incorporate multiple

measures to conduct safe blasting practices including the prevention of flyrock. MAXAM employ face

profiling and Boretracking to have actual burdens on blastholes for explosive loading criteria. In addition

drill logs are consulted to alter these criteria where ground conditions warrant.

The clearance distance to be used for evacuation of personnel (and plant) should be determined on site

parameters used for the blast. The evacuation distance can be variable and is determined by the

management of risk to acceptable levels.

Attachment 2 Minimum distances from the top of the pit to the Bannister residence and Boral Weighbridge.

Minimum Distances from Top of Pit to Bannister Residence and Boral Weighbridge

Holcim - information responses · 6450 DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lanes) 2014 07 14.docx Page 1...

Documents

Transcript of Holcim - information responses · 6450 DSDIP Letter (Acceleration Lanes) 2014 07 14.docx Page 1...