Prepared for Aussie Skips Waste Services NSW Pty Limited December 2021

Amended Noise Impact Assessment 5/84-108 Madeline Street, Strathfield South

www.emmconsulting.com.au

Servicing projects throughoutAustralia and internationally

SYDNEYGround Floor, 20 Chandos StreetSt Leonards NSW 2065T 02 9493 9500

NEWCASTLELevel 3, 175 Scott StreetNewcastle NSW 2300T 02 4907 4800

BRISBANELevel 1, 87 Wickham TerraceSpring Hill QLD 4000T 07 3648 1200

ADELAIDELevel 1, 70 Pirie StreetAdelaide SA 5000T 08 8232 2253

MELBOURNEGround Floor, 188 Normanby RoadSouthbank VIC 3006T 03 9993 1905

PERTHLevel 6, 191 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000

CANBERRAPO Box 9148Deakin ACT 2600

Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report 5/84-108 Madeline St, Strathfield South

Prepared for Aussie Skips Recycling Pty Limited December 2021

EMM Sydney Ground floor, 20 Chandos Street St Leonards NSW 2065 T 02 9493 9500 E info@emmconsulting.com.au

Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report 5/84-108 Madeline St, Strathfield South

Report Number

J200889 RP#

Client

Aussie Skips Recycling Pty Limited

Date

15 December 2021

Version

Final

Prepared by Approved by

Lucas Adamson Senior Acoustic Consultant 15 December 2021

Najah Ishac Director - Acoustics Technical Leader 15 December 2021

This report has been prepared in accordance with the brief provided by the client and has relied upon the information collected at the time and under the conditions specified in the report. All findings, conclusions or recommendations contained in the report are based on the aforementioned circumstances. The report is for the use of the client and no responsibility will be taken for its use by other parties. The client may, at its discretion, use the report to inform regulators and the public.

© Reproduction of this report for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from EMM provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this report for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without EMM’s prior written permission.

J200889 | RP# | v1 i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Acoustic Enclosure details 3

1.1.1 Heads of Agreement 3

1.1.2 Condition 5 - Required Design Changes 4

1.2 Sensitive receivers 5

2 Development Consent DA2020/250 7

2.1 Condition 5 7

2.2 Condition 12 7

3 Noise predictions 8

3.1 Equipment 8

3.1.1 Operations 8

3.1.2 Construction 9

4 Predicted noise levels 10

4.1 Results 10

4.1.1 Operations 10

4.1.2 Construction 11

5 Conclusion 13

Appendices Appendix A Architectural Drawings A.1

Appendix B Development Consent DA2020/250 B.1

Appendix C Modelled noise sources C.1

Tables Table 1.1 Residential receivers 5

Table 3.1 Modelled plant and equipment 9

Table 3.2 Typical construction equipment 9

Table 4.1 Predicted noise level assessment – inclusive of the proposed enclosure 10

Table 4.2 Construction noise – Predicted noise level assessment 11

Table C.1 Modelled plant and equipment single-octave band sound power levels C.2

J200889 | RP# | v1 ii

Figures Figure 1.1 Required design changes 4

Figure 1.2 Site location and noise sensitive assessment locations 6

Figure 4.1 Noise contours 12

Figure C.1 Modelled source locations C.3

J200889 | RP# | v1 3

1 Introduction EMM Consulting Pty Ltd (EMM) has been engaged by Aussie Skips Recycling Pty Ltd (Aussie Skips) to prepare an Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report for the recently approved acoustic enclosure (Development Consent DA2020/250) located at 5/84-108 Madeline Street, Strathfield South NSW (the Site). This Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report has been prepared in direct response to the requirements of Condition 12 of the Development Consent. The amended report also seeks to quantify the acoustic impacts of the building modifications required by Council in Conditions 5 of the same Consent. Aussie Skips has also lodged a s4.55(1a) Consent modification application in respect to the wording of Conditions 5. The acoustic implications of these required design changes are also considered in this Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report.

The Development Consent for DA2020/250 is for the construction of an acoustic enclosure building that will enclose the operational area of the Site. A key objective of the building is to enclose the existing waste recycling operations at the Site to minimise noise and dust impacts arising from operations.

The hours of operations remain unchanged at 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday.

This amended noise assessment will update the 2020 acoustic report submitted with the original Development Application and is now based on amended design drawings created by Cornerstone Design and are appended to this report (refer to Appendix A).

It should be noted, as this is a licensed waste facility, the views of the EPA are a relevant consideration, and it has notified the applicant that its preference is that all waste facilities should be fully enclosed.

1.1 Acoustic Enclosure details

Attached at Appendix A are the amended architectural drawings for the proposed acoustic enclosure, dated 21 December 2021. The new acoustic enclosure is to be constructed wholly within the designated lot (Lot 1 DP 556743) boundary and otherwise constructed as shown in the amended plans prepared by Cornerstone Design.

It is noted that the current approved building design incorporates 6m high concrete wall elements combined with metal cladding at higher levels as shown, and this is acoustically significant. From an acoustic mitigation perspective there are a range of materials that can achieve the noise performance levels required in Condition 12.

1.1.1 Heads of Agreement

A Heads of Agreement was signed between Council and Aussie Skips which includes design for acoustic purpose. The Heads of Agreement specifies metal cladded wall sections be included to achieve the stipulated noise requirements.

The design elements of the proposed acoustic enclosure include:

• Inner and outer lining of 0.6mm base metal thickness (BMT) sheet steel (colorbond) with a 250mm separation afforded by the structural elements (eg the girts). The wall sheet to sheet and roof junctions will be made with no gaps.1.25mm base metal thickness (BMT) sheet steel roof; and

• underside of roof to include absorptive lining (i.e. insulation blanket with perforated sarking on underside similar to 50mm thick Fletcher Insulation rigid glass wool with perforated foil faced e.g. Sisalation 450).

• Skylights are proposed and to be limited to a maximum area of 120 m2. Limiting the area of skylights is required to achieve a composite weighted sound reduction index (Rw) of the roof of not less than Rw 27.

J200889 | RP# | v1 4

1.1.2 Condition 5 - Required Design Changes

The Development Consent DA2020/250 requires design changes as described below.

Figure 1.1 Required design changes

Council has required the acoustic enclosure to be modified in Condition 5 (see Figure 1.1), such that there are a number of design elements that required acoustic remodelling.

1. The extension of the acoustic enclosure to the eastern boundary, removal of roller door/gates at this location and the raising of the eastern boundary wall height as a result of this Council design requirement;

2. The entrance to the building be reduced to the minimum required size (the previous opening size was 160m2 at time of Consent);

3. The acoustic mitigation construction materials in Figure 1.1 above, as carried through from the Heads of Agreement, are also remodelled.

For acoustic modelling purposes, the design specifications for the entrance have been modified by Aussies Skips to create two door openings (entry and exit) and the modified design is the subject of a s4.55 application to modify the words in this part of the Condition to make operations feasible. The entrance includes the following:

J200889 | RP# | v1 5

• two door openings to the building with the minimum required size (6m high x 6m wide each) to accommodate the largest proposed trucks. This reduces the entrance opening to a total of 72m2 – a reduction of approximately 88m2 form the original design;

• each opening is to accommodate the passage of only one truck movement at a time and must include at least 1m long flexible flaps to the top of the opening; and

• the flexible flaps must be maintained in order to keep the opening size minimised.

The amendments to the enclosure are designed to achieve the acoustic requirements stipulated in Condition 5 and achieve the performance criteria in Condition 12 of the Development Consent DA2020/250. EMM has now incorporated these design changes in the modelling for this amended noise report.

1.2 Sensitive receivers

The nearest residential noise sensitive receiver to the Site is located approximately 50 m to the south-east at 2 Chisholm Street, Belfield. Noise impacts have been predicted to this residence and several other residential properties to the south and south-east of the Site. These assessment locations are considered to represent the most-affected residences based on our observations, noise monitoring and modelling.

The details of the receivers are shown in Table 1.1 and are identified in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.1 Residential receivers

Receiver ID Address

R1 2 Chisholm Street, Belfield

R2 17 Excelsior Avenue, Belfield

R3 24 Excelsior Avenue, Belfield

R4 10 Chisholm Street, Belfield

R5 8 Sunlea Crescent, Belfield

R6 11 Chatfield Avenue, Belfield

R7 1 Chisholm Street, Belfield

R8 118 Madeline Street, Belfield

R9 110 Madeline Street, Belfield

R10 75 Madeline Street, Belfield

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Cooks RiverCoxs Creek

MADELINE STREET

CHISHOLM STREET

WATER STREET

HOPE STREET

B IRRIWA AVENUE

SUNLEA CRESCENT

CHATFIELD AVENUE

EXCELSIOR AVENUE

R6

R7

R8

R9R10

R1R2

R3

R4

R5

´

T:\Job

s\201

7\J17

084 - A

ussie S

kips n

oise c

omplia

nce\8

GIS\02

_Maps

\N002

_Nois

eMon

itorin

gLocat

ions_2

019090

9_04.m

xd 9/0

9/2019

0 50 100m

KEY!! Noise sensitive receiver

Aussie Skips siteCadastral boundaryWatercourse/drainage line

!

SITE LOCATION

CAMDENLIVERPOOL

BOWRALBULLI

DAPTO

GOSFORD

SYDNEY

WOLLONGONG

Source: EMM (2019); DFSI (2017); GA (2011)GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Aussie Skips !ƳŜƴŘŜŘ bƻƛǎŜ LƳLJŀŎǘ !ǎǎŜǎǎƳŜƴt

Figure мΦн

Site location and noise sensitiveassessment locations

J200889 | RP# | v1 7

2 Development Consent DA2020/250 A copy of the full acoustic enclosure Development Consent-DA2020/250 is provided in Appendix B The specific conditions relevant to this Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report acoustics are detailed below.

2.1 Condition 5

Condition 5 of Development Consent DA2020/250 relates to the required design of the enclosure – see Figure 1.1

Note: Aussie Skips has lodged a s4.55 modification application to vary the wording in this condition as a result of the required design changes

2.2 Condition 12

Condition 12 of Development Consent DA2020/250 relates to the requirement for an Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report and the relevant issues that are required to be addressed. The following excerpt relates specifically to the issues required to be addressed in the Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report:

Operational noise

The provided assessment fails to consider then operations of the facility (locations, operational hours and associated noise). As such, it is difficult to ascertain if the noise targets identified in the assessment can be achieved. The Noise Impact Assessment Report must demonstrate how noise targets identified in the assessment can be achieved.

First floor receiver – 17 Excelsior Avenue, Belfield

The assessment fails to include the first-floor receiver at No.17 Excelsior Avenue, Belfield. The noise monitoring and results from the monitoring in the amended Noise Impact Assessment Report must extend to include this receiver.

Leq level

The amended Noise Impact Assessment Report must apply a noise emission limit of 48dB(A) as an Leq (15 minute) level to any affected residential receiver location

The assessment must ensure that the Leq (15 minute) level is adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Noise Policy for Industry (2017) to account for any special audible characteristics.

The amended Noise Impact Assessment Report must be submitted to Council and approved by Council prior to the application for a Construction Certificate.

J200889 | RP# | v1 8

3 Noise predictions Noise emissions from the proposed site construction and operations have been modelled using Brüel & Kjær proprietary modelling software, Predictor. Predictor allows predictions under the ISO9613-2 “Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors – general method” algorithm. This algorithm is accepted by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in our experience. Features which affect the predicted noise level and which are considered in the Predictor noise model include:

• equipment sound power levels and locations;

• screening from structures;

• receiver locations;

• ground topography;

• noise attenuation due to geometric spreading;

• ground absorption; and

• atmospheric absorption.

3.1 Equipment

3.1.1 Operations

It has been assumed that all plant and equipment operate simultaneously. This is considered to be a conservative representation of a typical worst-case scenario as it is more typical of operations at this Site to find that individual items of plant are periodically idle or not in use due to maintenance or workflows.

Sound power levels and locations of all plant and equipment modelled on-Site are presented in Table 3.1. Importantly, the emission values for the main plant adopted in modelling are based on measurements by EMM at the site under existing conditions and hence provide the most relevant input. Prior to predicting final residential noise levels, onsite 15-minute readings were used to calibrate the model’s sound power levels for actual equipment used on the premises. Single-octave band sound power levels and modelled source locations are provided in Appendix C.

J200889 | RP# | v1 9

Table 3.1 Modelled plant and equipment

Location Equipment Sound power level, SWL Leq,15min

Inside proposed enclosure Excavator – Hyundai 25t1 107

Excavator – Hyundai 14t1 106

Excavator – Komatsu 14t1 106

Front end loader – Hyundai 7571 106

Main trommel and trommel/screen1,2 106

Street sweeper 104

Carriageway3 Trucks (idling) 90

Trucks (moving) 103

Notes: 1. Measured by EMM Consulting during a site visit on 15 January 2019. 2. Measurement was external and contained contribution from the main trommel inside the shed and from the smaller external trommel/screen. 3. Trucks were modelled as line sources when moving, and point sources when idling. All other equipment was modelled by calculating an internal reverberant sound pressure level (SPL) considering all equipment operating concurrently within the proposed acoustic shed. An internal reverberant SPL of 85 dB LAeq,15min was determined and adopted within the shed.

3.1.2 Construction

Construction activities associated with proposed works would be limited to the ICNG standard daytime hours only.

Equipment sound power levels have been taken from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2005, Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites, where relevant. Otherwise, data was sourced from an EMM database of similar equipment which is based on measurements at other construction sites.

Table 3.2 summarises typical equipment items, sound power level and quantities adopted in the noise modelling, as the exact equipment to be used is not yet detailed. The model considered the cumulative plant and equipment sound power level (operating at 100% utilisation) as an area source across the site, along with a line source for truck and dog vehicles along the site access route, providing a potential worst-case scenario.

Table 3.2 Typical construction equipment

Equipment Quantity Sound power level, dB LAeq,15min

Excavator 1 105

Front end loader 1 105

Truck and dogs 1 103

Generator 1 101

Crane 1 105

Hand tools (e.g. grinder) 1 108

J200889 | RP# | v1 10

4 Predicted noise levels 4.1 Results

4.1.1 Operations

Assuming the existence of the modified acoustic enclosure building, noise level predictions to the nearest representative assessment locations are provided in Table 4.1 (refer to Figure 1.2 for assessment locations). The noise modelling demonstrates that these locations (listed in Table 4.1) are the most exposed to site noise levels. Noise levels at other residential receivers will therefore be equal to or less than those presented in Table 4.1, for the respective areas. Importantly, and satisfying Condition 12 of Development Consent DA2020/250, the prediction presented herein for location R2 (17 Excelsior Avenue Belfield) is the upper floor position of that dwelling.

Predictions are presented and compared to the relevant noise criteria outlined in Condition 12 of Development Consent DA2020/250. The noise level predictions are based on operational noise sources outlined in Section 3.1. The modelled plant locations are generally consistent with their typical current operating positions, although the model has adopted an energy average noise level inside the enclosure and hence the outcomes of the modelling are not a function of the plant’s precise locations within the enclosure. Noise emission contours for the site are provided in Figure 4.1 for further reference.

Table 4.1 Predicted noise level assessment – inclusive of the proposed enclosure

Receiver ID Project Noise Trigger Level,

Leq,15min, dB(A)

Predicted noise levels, Leq,15min, dB(A)

Exceedance, dB Meets Criteria (Y/N)?

R1 48 ≤47 0 Y

R21 48 ≤48 0 Y

R3 48 ≤47 0 Y

R4 48 ≤45 0 Y

R5 48 ≤41 0 Y

R6 48 ≤41 0 Y

R7 48 ≤44 0 Y

R8 48 ≤43 0 Y

R9 48 ≤45 0 Y

R10 48 ≤47 0 Y

Cooke Park 53 ≤51 0 Y

Notes: 1. The predicted noise level for location R2 (17 Excelsior Avenue, Belfield) is for the upper floor (i.e. worst-case) position of that residence.

In summary, the noise level predictions satisfy the 48 dB(A) Leq,15minute noise criterion outlined in Condition 12 of development Consent DA2020/250 at all receiver locations for the modelled worst-case operational scenario.

Noise emission contours in Figure 4.1 also demonstrate that predicted site noise will comply with the relevant noise criterion at all neighbouring residential receivers, as well as those listed above. The modified acoustic enclosure will therefore improve the Site’s noise contributions at residences as compared to existing and historic levels (i.e. up to

J200889 | RP# | v1 11

53dB(A)). It is also important to note that the acoustic enclosure will contain noise from the Site and therefore eliminating any possible noise reflections. The trucks on the access driveway will be the only Site related noise sources that are not contained.

4.1.2 Construction

Noise level predictions to the nearest representative residential assessment locations are provided in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Construction noise – Predicted noise level assessment

Receiver ID ICNG standard construction hours NML

Leq,15min, dB(A)

Predicted noise levels, Leq,15min, dB(A)

Exceedance of NML, dB

R1 53 63 10

R2 53 63 10

R3 53 58 5

R4 53 55 2

R5 53 51 0

R6 53 51 0

R7 53 52 0

R8 53 51 0

R9 53 52 0

R10 53 53 0

Cooke Park 65 <65 0

As seen in Table 4.2, the NML is exceeded by 2 dB and up to a maximum of 10 dB at four representative assessment locations. These locations are indicative, and it is possible that additional residences will be exposed to similar construction noise levels. Predicted construction noise levels are well below the highly affected noise level of 75 dB at all assessment locations.

Exceedances of NML during construction phases are common for sites in close proximity to residences, however the construction phase will be short in duration being up to six months. The predictions in Table 4.2 represent the worst-case construction noise scenario, as it assumes all equipment specified in Section 3.1.2 is operating concurrently and constantly throughout a 15-minute period. This is unlikely in reality. Nevertheless, standard practice noise mitigation and management measures will be applied to minimise construction noise as far as practicable where noise levels above NMLs have been predicted. To that end, it is important to consider levels above NMLs in the context of the proposed works being largely for the purposes of noise mitigation and hence in such circumstances residual noise above NML are acceptable given the aim of reducing operational noise.

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

Cooks RiverCoxs Creek

M ADELINE STREET

CHISHOLM STREET

W ATER STREET

HOPE STREET

BIRRIWAAV EN

UE

SUNLEACRESCENT

CHATFIELD AV ENUE

EXCELSIOR AV ENUE

R6

R7

R8

R9R10

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

!B65

!B60

!B50!B48 !B55

!B70

!B65!B65

!B48

´

\\emmsvr1\EMM\Jobs\2017\J17084 - Aussie Skips noise compliance\8 GIS\02_Maps\N003_NoiseContours_20190909_05.mxd 9/09/2019

0 50 100m

KEYAussie Skip s siteCadastral bo undaryW aterco urse/drainage line

!! No ise sensitive receiverNo ise co nto ur – LAeq,15m inute80 dB(A)75 dB(A)70 dB(A)65 dB(A)60 dB(A)55 dB(A)50 dB(A)48 dB(A)

So urce: EM M (2019); DFSI (2017); GA (2011)GDA 1994 M GA Z o ne 56

Aussie Skip s !ƳŜƴŘŜŘ No ise Im p act Assessm ent

CƛƎdzNJŜ пΦ 1

No ise co nto urs

J200889 | RP# | v1 13

5 Conclusion EMM has produced an Amended Noise Impact Assessment Report for the Aussie Skips recycling facility at Strathfield South, NSW. The amended assessment has focussed on the potential operational noise impacts on neighbouring residential receivers and includes the proposed enclosure detailed in drawings by Cornerstone Design as attached in Appendix A herein.

This report shows that the modified design and operational requirements of Conditions 5 & 12 of the Development Consent DA2020/250 will be achieved, including demonstrating that the amended acoustic enclosure will result in the agreed 48dB(A) Leq,15minute criterion at all residential receivers (even with the Council required extension of the enclosure to the East and the proposed reduced entrance opening design).

Construction noise from the proposed upgrades has also been assessed to neighbouring residential assessment locations. Potential mitigation and management measures consistent with standard industry practice will be adopted where NMLs are predicted to be exceeded during worst-case construction activities.

Appendix A Architectural Drawings

CORNERSTONED E S I G N

CORNERSTONED E S I G N

CORNERSTONED E S I G N

IN OUT

CORNERSTONED E S I G N

J200889 | RP# | v1 B.1

Appendix B Development Consent DA2020/250

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Version: 1, Version Date: 18/05/2021Document Set ID: 2096403

Appendix C Modelled noise sources

J200889 | RP# | v1 C.2

Table C.1 Modelled plant and equipment single-octave band sound power levels

Equipment SWL, dBA

SWL, dBZ

Single-octave band (Hz), Sound power levels(dBZ)

63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

Excavator – Hyundai 25t1 107 113 108 108 106 104 100 99 98 93

Excavator – Hyundai 14t1 106 111 105 102 103 104 102 98 92 85

Excavator – Komatsu 14t1 106 111 105 102 103 104 102 98 92 85

Front end loader – Hyundai 7571 106 115 111 109 103 102 101 98 93 88

Main trommel and trommel/screen1,2

106 113 110 105 102 104 100 97 92 94

Street sweeper 104 111 108 103 97 103 99 95 89 86

Trucks (idling) 90 96 93 85 83 84 86 85 79 72

Trucks (moving) 103 113 111 105 99 99 99 96 91 85

Notes: 1. Measured by EMM Consulting during a site visit on 15 January 2019. 2. Measurement was external and contained contribution from the main trommel inside the shed and from the smaller external trommel/screen.

www.emmconsulting.com.au

www.emmconsulting.com.au